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. Lorelei

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

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0


    The "blurb" isn't the book. It isn't even a site owned or operated by Dave Hunt. I would have linked straight to Dave Hunt's website, but the book is currently out of stock there. I wanted to link to a site where people were free to purchase the book until more are published.

    So again, you are trying to talk about what some "blurb" says instead of the book itself. I never read anywhere in the book where Dave Hunt says that Calvinists think savlation is not available to all who accept Christ. Of course since you haven't read the book you wouldn't know that.

    ~Lorelei
     
  2. Chet

    Chet New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry said
    We will be waiting...
     
  3. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0


    The "blurb" isn't the book. It isn't even a site owned or operated by Dave Hunt. I would have linked straight to Dave Hunt's website, but the book is currently out of stock there. I wanted to link to a site where people were free to purchase the book until more are published.

    So again, you are trying to talk about what some "blurb" says instead of the book itself. I never read anywhere in the book where Dave Hunt says that Calvinists think savlation is not available to all who accept Christ. Of course since you haven't read the book you wouldn't know that.

    ~Lorelei
    </font>[/QUOTE]So you are saying that the guy who wrote the blurb was wrong??? He is saying that that is what the book teaches. I am confused. Is this guy writing the blurb really that uninformed about the book? Are they selling it on false pretenses??
     
  4. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    We will be waiting... </font>[/QUOTE]I have done it before. I will do it again. Just point it out. I will be waiting ...
     
  5. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    They should have left off "who accept Christ". Let's break it down like a quadratic equation: What he is not saying is "(God's grace is free) (to all who accept Christ)",
    but rather
    "(God's grace is free to all) (who accept Christ)".
    The point is "free to all", and those "who accept Christ" will be the ones who receive its benefit as opposed it only being free to those who accept, and to the rest, being denied it altogether.
    Yes, this may not have been the best way to phrase it, but people know what he's trying to say, so still, this is no excuse to accuse anyone of "misrepresentation".
     
  6. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very creative, but do you really think he was thinking something so technical??? If this is what he meant to say, he should not be writing anything. This guy probably writes for a living. This is what he gets paid for. I am quite sure that he has learned how to express himself clearly.

    But more to the point, this construction doesn't even make sense grammatically. You leave "who accept Christ" standing out by itself. Grammatically speaking that this a modifying phrase. What does it modify???? "All." Your construction simply will not work. He said "God's grace is free to all who accept Christ." We agree. For him to use Hunt's "meticulous appraisal" as the basis for that statement is crazy. You don't need Hunt's work to know that is true.

    I think you are right that people know what he is trying to say. Why try to go to these great contortions to deny it? You agree with him don't you??? He is using Hunt's "meticulous appraisal" of Calvinist doctrines as the basis for his argument that "God's grace is free to all who accept Christ." "Who accept Christ" does not stand on its own. It must have the rest of the sentence. This author, whether intentionally or not, misrepresented the truth about Calvinism. Sorry guys ... When you try to defend something like this, you make it worse. It is somewhat humorous to me to see you fall all over yourselves to defend this bad paragraph. We should probably expect it, having watched you defend the book to begin with. But it still is quite humorous to me ...
     
  7. PappaBear

    PappaBear New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello, Eric. There is no question that he sees it, but a stone wall cannot repent, or admit to being wrong. It can just be a stone wall. And it appears to be a whited stone wall, at that.
     
  8. Lorelei

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

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ask the owners of ChristianBook.com, they are not associated with Dave Hunt, they just profit from selling books.

    Dave Hunt has been writing books since around 1978 and has written over 28 books. His history shows that his books are always well researched and informative. Calvinists are the only group that try to claim otherwise and it is simply because they can't see the fallacies of their own doctrines.

    The opinions on both sides have been presented, now people must make up their own mind. I just thank God that we are able to see the truth if we so choose. We can decide to accept it or reject it, it's our choice. I am thankful that God can be sovereign AND allow me to have a free will. What a loving, merciful and truly sovereign God He is!

    ~Lorelei
     
  9. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I notice that you have not bothered to answer any questions about your tactics and motives. I noticed you have dodged every single issue. Why?? Why not face up to what you have done? There is nothing whited or stone about me. I have been transparent, honest, and straightforward. I have not twisted your words, nor anyone else. I should be able to expect the same from you.
     
  10. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you ever stop to consider the fact that maybe, just maybe, you don't know as much as you think you do??? Do you really think that every single Calvinist is in a great conspiracy??? Come now, Lorelei. You are brighter than that. This is a time to admit that Hunt just messed up. We know what we believe. We have studied it. We have all converted from our previous arminianism. Some know more than others to be sure. But when Calvinists who know unanimoulsy agree that Hunt missed it, and when many arminians join us in saying Hunt missed it, it is time for you and your friends to step back and think again.

    I agree completely, though what I mean by this is entirely different than what you mean. I am glad that I can take the Scriptures and defend my position with ignoring or twisting any passage. I am glad I do not have to depend on misrepresentations or twistings. We can simply let God say what he said. And I am glad that this is a doctrine we can participate in without believing in. What a wonderful gracious God we serve.
     
  11. Lorelei

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

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0




    Note how I spoke about Calvinists in general, while you had to get personal. Of course had you spoken generally your argument would have accused an awful lot of people of being uneducated on the issue, which is of course the exact thing you are reprimanding me for stating. Do you honestly think that ALL non-Calvinists who agree with Dave Hunt just don't know enough? Do you really think that every single non-Calvinist is in a great conspiracy??? Come now, Pastor Larry. You are brighter than that. How am I wrong for thinking the same thing about ALL Calvinists?

    Of course if you only think that I don't know enough, but that Dave Hunt and EVERY OTHER theologian that agrees with his book does, then this doesn't prove that anything. Therefore, this rhetoric is pointless to the issue and therefore it isn't time to admit anything.



    You truly confuse me. If the Bible says what it says, why must we search out theologians to understand what Calvinists believe?

    How is this for a better understanding?

    You aren't properly representing Calvinism = Calvinism has a nicer way of saying that God predestines people to hell for his own glory

    You need to study more theologians to understand what we believe = Only people with a certain degree of intellect can comprehend how this makes God loving and merciful

    I am sure there are more, but you get the point.

    ~Lorelei
     
  12. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    "You" is also a plural pronoun, so I may well have been speaking generally. You assumed too much perhaps :D However, you are right, I was addressing you. But there was nothing negative about it. I actually asked a question. Did you ever stop to think that you don't know as much as perhaps you think you do???? Is that a possibility??? It is for me. I have admitted before that I don't have all the answers. I don't pretend to. Will you admit the same??

    Yes, I think they are poorly taught on the doctrine of soteriology. Do you not think the same about us?? Perhaps you think we do know enough and we are intentionally teaching bad theology.

    No. That is why some arminians have come out and said Hunt's book is bad.

    Do you know of a Calvinist who says that Hunt's book is well written and well documented?? Do you know of a Calvinist who says Hunt properly reflected what we believe??? I don't. So far as I know, every single Calvinist that has read it has had the same reaction to it.

    I directed the question to you because I was talking to you. I wasn't talking to Dave Hunt. As for what Hunt knows, there is every reason to be believe he knows better. According to James White, at one point Hunt said he had read none of the reformers. Then six months later he had read enough reformers to write this book. AS fanciful as that sounds, we will grant him the benefit of the doubt. I know that many people have written to him, and talked to him, both publicly and privately, teaching him the truth about this matter. So I doubt that he doesn't know. I think he is willfully mislead on this issue. Is that a surprise that I would say that??

    You don't. You can get it the way I did ... by reading the Bible. But to do that, you have to study it for what it says, apart from your preconception. (You is generic.)

    However, we know the value of theologians. Even Peter said that Paul wrote some things that are hard to understand. Having teachers, whether in person or in print, is an invaluable resource to understanding God's word. I came to believe in God's sovereignty in salvation through SCripture alone. Later, I began to read some things that increased my understanding. I read from both sides. I was convinced that one side could deal with the Scripture accurately and fairly, without ignoring certain parts of it. I was not convinced of that about the other side.

    Not sure what you are going after here ... It seems kind of out of place in this discussion. I assume this has some reference to Rom 9 and I must be honest -- that verse gives me some difficulty. It is a little more "calvinistic" than even I like to be. But again, I am forced to wrestle with what the text actually says, rather than what I wish it said.

    We believe God is loving and merciful, not based on the extent of our understanding, but rather based on teh truth of his revelation. Certainly, intellect helps to understand some things. But great intellect can lead to great despair and denial. I am simply suggesting that knowing what we believe, and confronting it from God's word rather than from emotion and logic is the best way to combat what we believe, if indeed combatting is still what you want to do after seeing the Scriptures. I am not suggesting an elitism in Calvinism. No doubt that exists, but no more than in arminianism. It exists for both of us. Just read the posts on here if you doubt it.

    Actually, my intellect fails me at this point. I am not sure what your point really was. I tried to respond appropriately, but it wasn't entirely clear.

    Here's the bottom line, as I have asked before:

    1) If you want to discuss or debate Calvinism and Arminianism, please discuss what the other side actually believes, not what you think they believe, or what you wish they believe.

    2) Accept that your opponent knows what he/she believes better than you know what they believe. If they tell you they don't believe something, then accept that. Ask for clarification; ask for reconciliation with what you believe are biblical/theological/logical tensions. But don't keep repeating false statements about belief.
    They may indeed have some tensions; both sides do.

    3) Accept the fact that Calvinists do not base their doctrine on a man, any more than Arminians do. Both sides claim the Bible as their authority. The label "biblicist" therefore means nothing substantive in this discussion. We should discuss what the Bible actually says and how it relates to other biblical truth.
     
  13. Chet

    Chet New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry said:
    Your incorrect assumption is that Dave Hunt was associated with the blurb that Christianbook.com put there. Looking at his book you won’t find this. You made it out to be some sort of evidence against the book and Hunt when this is not the case. Incidentally I don’t agree with the blurb, I do understand that Calvinist believe that God’s grace is free to all who accept Christ.

    (Emphasis mine not PL’s)

    Could you please list some for me so that I can review why they think Hunts book is bad? Maybe they believe this is so because Hunt does not believe in Arminianism.

    I have the same testimony Pastor Larry.

    I agree with the emotion part of this, but do you feel that Biblical doctrines are illogical at times?

    I understand your intent here Pastor Larry, and I appreciate it. I agree with most of what you said. I wish more people would take all of what you said in consideration when discussing any topic. But I can’t help but point out to you that in your very words you are doing exactly what you are speaking against. You make a blanket statement that is saying all those who oppose Calvinism are Arminian. How many times do we who are not Arminian have to tell you we are NOT Arminian? Please refer to point number two and ask for clarification and quite repeating false statements about beliefs.

    Obviously there are going to be people who don’t understand Calvinism. But Calvinist by in large (including you) makes these “elite” type statements that suggest that anyone who is not Calvinist is dumb and ignorant. This is a lie. This is especially the case with Dave Hunt is is far from some ignorant fool. I don't just say that because he wrote a book against Calvinism, but because I have read books by Hunt even before his "What Love is This".

    I think you will agree, and take it for what its worth, that sometimes in discussing theology we have to point out what the other person “believes” or the result of their belief. I had to do this the other day when discussing Mormonism with two Mormons. I knew more about their beliefs than they did. While they as individuals may not believe some of what Mormonism teaches, they still claim to be Mormon, thus I could tell them what Mormonism teaches. The same hold true with any "belief system" Of course I understand that this works both ways. [​IMG]
     
  14. Chet

    Chet New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry said:

    Could you please list some books you feel represents your view of Calvinism correctly yet still disagree's with it?
     
  15. Lorelei

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

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0


    I haven't met a Catholic yet that hasn't called Dave Hunt a catholic basher for publishing his book A Woman Rides the Beast, yet the book was well written and well documented. I know this because I verified his sources by finding them on the net and posting them in my conversations. Even after all that, they still had the audacity to deny it!

    I am certain the Mormons didn't like his book The God Makers.

    You said to look at a person's history. Dave Hunt has written several books and up until now, no one with any credentials accused him of misrepresenting his subjects. Calvinists never spoke out against Dave Hunt as a man who misrepresents people in his books until now. Has he misreresented Catholicism, Momoronism? Has he misrepresented Islam or Judaism in A Cup of Trembling or the occult, psychology or the many other various things he has written about? If it is the character of Dave Hunt to blatantly misrepresent what his opponents believe wouldn't his history portray that at all? Where were all these so called friends when he wrote ALL those other books? Or was only THIS book written poorly? Did Dave suddenly abandon his own ethics and morals and quality of writing to attack Calvinism? Well, his history proves to me that this is not in his character. In reading the book, I found it to be very accurate, well researched and well written.

    I think Dave's record alone should make one at least give Dave Hunt the benefit of the doubt and read it for themselves before making up their own mind.



    The bottom line is that you can't expect something of us that you refuse to do yourself. You continually shout these demands at us then turn around and do the opposite yourself. So please, do take this advice, or at least admit that we AREN'T breaking your set of rules.





    How I tire of hearing I misrepresent Calvinism when I simply point out the conclusions that must be made if their belief is to be true.

    However, it appears to be alright to misrepresent a non-Calvinist. This conclusion is not based upon what we believe, but merely what they wish or think we believe.

    They did the same thing we did, they drew a conclusion based upon their understanding of our doctrine. Maybe Non-Calvinists should read more books like What Love Is This so they can at least represent our beliefs correctly!




    Even in this thread you have not extended us this same courtesy. Instead of saying things like, "Did you read this paragraph before you posted this?? This doesn't even make sense...It is no wonder you have a hard time communicating...etc" maybe you should ask for clarification. I would simply like to see you extend the same courtesy that you demand of us.





    But you aren't going to extend us the same courtesy? Saying we believe the Bible only out of context, in an unfair and inaccurate manner is hardly admitting that we get our belief from the Bible.

    When you can begin to live up to your own expectations, maybe we can finally have a fruitful discussion. :rolleyes:

    ~Lorelei
     
  16. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I have read about Hunt's book says this is true. This blurb writer evidently thought it was, since the blurb is intended to give a synopsis so that people will buy it.

    I am glad to hear that.

    Hunt does believe in arminianism. As for names, no I can't give any. When this book first came out, I read so many things going around about it, but that has been quite some time, and honestly, until this discussion came up a few weeks ago, I hadn't thought of this book or heard of it in a long time. I don't really remember.

    You also asked above about writers I have read. To be honest there as well, it has been a number of years and I can't remember them. In the last few years, I have read very little on this subject. I just don't have the time; I have better stuff to pursue. I will try to look back through some notes if I get a chance and recall some names.

    No, I would say "inscrutable." Our finite minds are limited so we can't understand all things clearly.

    Chet, we have pointed out many times that there are two evangelical groups in this discussion. There are calvinists and arminians. There is not other category unless you get to open theists which is arminianism extended. Don't be confused. Being an arminian does not mean that you follow Arminius or that you subscribe to everything he believed. It means that you do not believe that God sovereignly and unilaterally elect individuals to salvation. A calvinist does. If you are not an arminian, then you are a calvinist or an open theist. There is no perjorativeness in that. Don't read any. It is just a short hand way to refer to those who agree in principle with what arminius taught about soteriology.

    Does not the title of this forum say it all??? If you are not an arminian, then why are you posting here??? You are certainly not a calvinist. :D ... The reality is that we understand that CAlvinism and Arminianism are the two options, whether one likes the name or not. On another discussion group I am a part of, there was a recent discussion about whether we should even call ourselves calvinists since we are not baby-baptizers and covenant theologians. The reality is that the terms are not what's important. It is the doctrines that are important.

    Uninformed and unwilling to interact substantively with the text is how I would put it.

    I pointed out above that Hunt was taught very clearly that he was doing wrong in this and rejected it. He is not dumb and ignorant. He is willfully violating what he has been taught about calvinism.

    I have no problem with that. But this is a situation where people keep on saying stuff that is absolutely unfounded. That should not be a part of this discussion. It is one thing to make a mistake or to draw a wrong conclusion. It is one thing to question about logical and theological implications of a view. It is quite another to keep repeateing some mantra in hopes that the other side will eventually capitulate and admit that they really didn't know what they believed.

    [ December 30, 2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  17. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Didn't we recently have a discussion where I said that people should read this book being very diligent and checking the sources???????? I think we did. So why are you bringing this up???? I am confident that when people honestly check his sources from an unbiased position, they will see the problems. I haven't read anything he has written since the Seduction of Christianity so I can't speak about his other works. My fear is that people will read Hunt as credible because they like some of his other works. That would be unfortunate. Even the very title of the book is inflammatory, suggesting that Calvinist's have a defective view of God's love. I think we can argue that our view of God's love is higher than yours is. But that would be another discussion.

    I don't. Perhaps you can show me where I have done this.



    How I tire of hearing I misrepresent Calvinism when I simply point out the conclusions that must be made if their belief is to be true.

    However, it appears to be alright to misrepresent a non-Calvinist. This conclusion is not based upon what we believe, but merely what they wish or think we believe. </font>[/QUOTE]Why didn't you quote the rest of that paragraph from which you took little line above??? I know why you didn't. Let's post it here and show everyone else why you didn't.

    Notice the bold text, where I explicitly say that this statement is not a statement of my belief about your position. I was not accusing you or misrepresenting your beliefs. In the context of the discussion, I was illustrating something you brought up about honesty. Had you posted the rest of the quote, we all would have seen that I did not misrepresent your belief and therefore did not violate my own standard. Of course, then your point would have been refuted by the very same paragraph you used to make the point ...

    Please show where I have said this in this thread. It seems like some context to these comments might be in order. There are some things people post from time to time that don't make sense, that make you wonder if the person did any proof reading at all. For instance, just this morning in teh BVT forum, someone posted something about having "Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts in our own language." How funny can you be ... That was something that someone obviously didn't think through before they said it. When that happens, I point it out, and others have done so to me before. THat is not a problem.

    I try to practice that regularly. If you think I have failed, please send me a PM. As I have said many times, I am not above posting in haste or in error and I am not above apologizing when I have been wrong.

    Once again, the context of these comments would have been extremely helpful. I know you believe the Bible. I am not questioning that. But I believe that if you take the Bible in its context, and in light of all that God has said, what is known as Calvinism is the inescapable conclusion. You think the same thing about us. So what??? I think there are a great many inaccurate handlings of God's word. I think a great many CAlvinists do it, and I will discuss it with them.

    Lorelei, in a discussion like this, it is inevitable that both sides will think the other is wrong. And in so doing, we are both going to claim Scripture as our basis. There is nothing wrong with that. But that is where the debate should be focused. From my understanding, Hunt does not accurately deal with Scripture. Unfortunately here, Scripture not often dealt with. We have people who make hilarious arguments about stuff and then expect them to be taken seriously. Over the past months, I have really grown tired of it and this thread has been the only one that I have posted anything of significance in in a long time. I post here and there, but not at length. It simply gets old. We have differences and those differences spring from how we read the Bible.

    Then let the fruitful discussion begin because I have met that mark.
     
  18. Chet

    Chet New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry said:

    O.K. Pastor Larry. Your right :rolleyes: . We can now judge every book on CBD by what the blurbs say cause that’s obviously what they understood the author to mean. That blurb says it all.

    I understand you point. But, I don’t agree with your analysis. In your mind there can only be one of two. But this is simply not the case. Is Arminianism easier to say or write than non-Calvinist?

    If I posted on a board that said JW’s vs. Mormons, does that mean I have to be one or the other????? Or if you posted on a board that was hyper-Calvinist vs Arminianism, would that mean you were hyper?


    Lorelei said:
    Very true, very well written. Amen.


    For the most part, I think I am finished posting on this thread. For what it is worth, I say to anyone reading that I endorse Dave Hunt’s book on Calvinism. As well as the vast majority of his other works. I listen to him via internet as well and he has a tremendous amount to offer to Christendom. We can argue all day over who said what about someone’s book (even when we don’t know exactly who). But until we actually investigate matters on our own, it doesn’t mean anything.
     
  19. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    No, of curse not. I was breaking it down technically, to help people understand it.
    As I said, it was not a good way of phrasing it, but it is a common mistake. "Who accept Christ" stood out by itself because I was trying to illustrate with his exact words. Really, "accept Christ" should be modifying "grace is free", showing that that is how the free grace is received, as opposed to unconditional election. Yes, there is much gramatically missing from it to convey that point.
     
  20. Lorelei

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

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0


    Isn't it a bit presumptious to act as if you know the mind of Lorelei? You should accept that I not only know what I believe better than you, you should expect I would know my motivations better than you. I was not accusing you of misrepresenting my beliefs, I was showing how you defended those who did.

    Let's see which pronoun I used, You (referring to Pastor Larry) or They (Referring to the people you said made the claim).



    In assuming that I thought this was your personal opinion you have missed the point. My point was that you explained away the behavior of James White misrepresenting what Dave Hunt believes, yet you insist that we should only speak about each other in terms of what we actually believe. Well, Dave Hunt does NOT deny the freedom of God.

    Instead of saying they misrepresented Dave Hunt you said "Is it?"(referring to me saying it was a lie) You were defending their stance by suggesting that theirs could be a valid conclusion, ignoring the fact that the conclusion is not what Non-Calvinists believe.

    You can't have it both ways. If we are to "discuss what the other side actually believes" then BOTH sides must be held to the same standard. You can't let your own side draw conclusions because you agree with those conclusions but deny the other side the right to draw conclusions simply because you disagree with them. That is a double standard, plain and simple.

    If Calvinists CAN conclude what we believe according to their understanding of the doctrine, then WE can conclude what Calvinists believe according our understanding of the doctrine.

    Did James White break this rule by concluding that Dave Hunt denies the freedom of God when Dave Hunt does not profess to do so?

    A simple yes or no will do.

    ~Lorelei
     
Loading...