He did give us an interesting fact which provoked this thought:
Why would someone want to read a book written by a mortal fallible man to attempt to explain the concepts of an infallible Bible written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit?
It may be he read the Institutes in order to know exactly how to deal with the beliefs that James White taught and would be addressing.
If you were to debate, say Arminianism, would it not stand to reason that you should learn your opponents beliefs first?
True, our Bible should be our sole authority.
All answers are found therein.
Many are not as skilled in memorizing the Word.
Many memorize that Word with no problems.
This destruction/giving as ransom is eternal death, because the people would be dying in their sin. Yet, the Lord says He "will rejoice over you to destroy you" in Deut, and in Isaiah it is for the salvation of His people.
Both cases people die and go to hell.
Jesus also rejoiced...
But notice Hunt says...
Hunt uses his own human logic of what the Bible says.
This is a false gospel.
Linda, having read both books, I agree with all your points.
I found James dismissing many of Hunt's objections to Calvinism with the "straw man" rebuttal wherein White doesn't really tell us what the "straw" he thinks Hunt sees really is.
On the other hand, I found my spirit raised to new heights as I considered how universally accessible salvation is and how well God pictured it in some of the OT imagery (Passover, the brazen serpent, etc.).
The one impression I left "Debating Calvinism" with was this --- it so seems that their theology is trying to get people to bypass the narrow gate of belief (we choose) and repentance toward Christ and to take the much wider gate of election (God chooses) + works.
And I don't mean to be insulting by that statement but just to say what I see.
It's like the difference between entering into relationship with the church, the place of SANCTIFICATION from sin, and eschewing a relationship (the "I do")
with Christ, the way of JUSTIFICATION for sin.
In the past, I have compared this to "living with" Christ while not "espoused."
And how do I get this?
They do not -- in fact, cannot and stay true to their theology -- invite anyone to receive Christ for salvation.
Why?
1) Only the 'elect' can do so and 2) they don't do so by any "active" means but insist on "passively" having their 'election' revealed to them.
White's observation that they DO believe and DO repent after they are regenerated is precisely what free will believers do too, but post-salvation, that is to our SANCTIFICATION (growth in grace), not to JUSTIFICATION (receiving grace).
I read these 2 books also.
I found Geisler compromising and intellectually "squishy" as he tried to reconcile Calvinism with free will.
I personally didn't see how either side would come to his "peace table."
And where is the "pleased" part of it?
Didn't you just drag it in from a totally different context and meaning?!
And how come God, doing always as He "pleases," couldn't "gather [Jerusalem] as a hen would her chicks?"
It is this perverted view of sovereignty that causes the distortion in the very character and nature of God.
You appear to have a better understanding of the Greek gods of FATE than of the God of heaven.
And for the reason that EVERYONE and ANYONE can hear and receive salvation.
And we should invite them to say "I do" to Jesus.
That's a "red herring," dale.
You didn't even know what I was referring to and yet you do know that I don't understand.
How's that for blind accusations?
Thanks SFIC, I guess I would look for Calvin CliffsNotes before investing the time necessary to read 1800 pages of a mortal man's perception of God's plan for the human race.