Dave Hunt's new book ignites controversy...

Did you read White's response and interact with his reasoning and exegesis?

 

For more on Spurgeon's view of redemption and atonement, see Spurgeon's exposition of 1 Tim 2:3-4 in Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism by Iain Murray (Banner of Truth).

 

Lorelei said

Exactly Lorelei, those were my thoughts as well. It also seems Calvinist has to have there little hero’s. Excellent point.

Pastor Larry said

Did YOu read Hunt’s book in its entirety? Do you plan too? It may help you understand Soteriology better if you do.

 

It seems the teaching that the atonement is only for a certain number of particular individuals is limiting the atonement.

For my part, that the atonement is available for all men as sinners does not lessen the value of the atonement. In the first place, the value of the atonement stems from the value of the One offering Himself for sinners; His personal worth is not devalued because he is rejected. In the second place, it is the Calvinist position that places a limit on the efficacy of Christ's atonement by restricting it to a certain number of particular individuals. Its effectiveness is limited, regardless of any claims to efficacy, in the sense that what is sufficient for all is not made available for all.

It’s like having food enough for ten starving children, but intending to feed only three. The food is nutritionally efficacious for the three children; it would also have been efficacious for the seven others if it had not been disposed of. Whether or not the children wanted the food is irrelevant because the primary intention was not to give it to them in the first place. The value of the food remains. Its power to give nutrition is not diminished. However, it is limited as to what it can do, not because it cannot do what it was intended to do and not because it was rejected by the seven starving children; but because it was dumped in the garbage like so much trash.

Ing claims the Calvinist assert a limit on the intent of the atonement. If so, the limit is not because the atonement itself is not valuable, ineffectual, or rejected but because God never intended to provide atonement for certain individuals in the first place. By offering what is sufficient for all while never intending to make it effective for all, the Reformed view makes God the one who “limits the merit of Christ’s atonement.”

Furthermore, to stress that the atonement is “sufficient for all but efficacious for the elect only” is not only to limit what is asserted to be unlimited but to have it go to waste like so much trash.

My reading of the Bible tells me that the blood of Christ is sufficient and effective for all, should all take advantage of it. Therefore, it’s ineffectiveness lies not in God’s intention but in man’s decision. If someone wastes what is valuable, the blame is not laid to God but to the sinner who “has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant."

The problem may be in assuming that “the best and brightest” are among the Calvinist school only.

The point emphasized was not whether or not God hates but the view that He “does not want everyone in heaven” and “even takes pleasure in damning.” I would think that for God to hate is one thing; for God to take pleasure in hating is another.

Calvinism claims that God could save everyone if He wanted to but He doesn’t want to; that the blood of Christ is sufficient for all but intended for the few.

Man’s rejection of God does not diminish God’s omnipotence. If it did, God was less than omnipotent way back in infinite time when Lucifer rebelled. Therefore, belief in God’s omnipotence is not inconsistent with belief in man’s ability to sin, for what is sin if it is not also an act to “thwart what God wants”?

There is a man who lives in a village where all the people say He is strong and loving. One day the village people all had a picnic on a cliff. By accident two young children, disobeying their parent’s orders not to play near the edge, slipped and fell over the edge. Miraculously, however, they both managed to grab the side of the cliff, dangling hundreds of feet to their deaths.

The strong and loving man runs to them hearing their cursing and crying and the pleas of the villagers for help. The villagers know that this strong and loving man, able to save both, is their only hope. As he runs towards them, the strong and loving man, though fully aware that he has the strength sufficient to save both, nevertheless says, “I’ll grab the one on the left but the one on the right I will leave alone. The one on the right deserves to die anyway so, no loss.”

As he reaches them, the man grabs the boy on his left and swiftly picks him up like a feather away from danger. As he holds him in his strong arms, the boy cries, “I’m so sorry! I’ll never disobey my parents again! Oh, thank you mister.”

The boy left dangling at the edge of the cliff cries and curses at them both. “You shouldn’t curse at the man,” said the saved boy, “He is strong and loving and is able to save you too. Aren’t you, Mister?”

“Yes, I can” says the strong and loving man, “but I don’t want to save him. I want to save you.”

“Oh, you’re so wonderful,” exclaims the saved boy as the other losses his grip and falls to his death. All the villagers have seen and heard everything that has happened, and begin whispering to each other, saying…

(I’ll let someone else finish the last sentence in ending the story, if one cares to do so)

1. If God decided whom to save then, He has decided whom not to save. If God intended Fred to go to Heaven then, He intended Bill to go to hell. If God made heaven for Fred, then God made hell for Bill. If God predestined to choose Fred for salvation then, God predestined not to choose Bill for salvation. If God made the choice to hold out His hand to save Fred, then He made the choice to keep back His hand to save Bill.

2. It is ultimately not sin but God who damns. Damnation is not an automatic cause-and-effect without any involvement on God’s part. Sin merits judgment but God judges.

I’m not to sure about what an Arminian has to deal with but, since all Christians agree that God is omniscient, how exactly it operates seems open to an amiable debate.

In any case, the assertion that God foreknows who goes to hell is quite different from the assertion that God predestines who goes to hell, especially when meticulous providence is taken into consideration. In the latter, the fate of the man is already decided by God as irrevocable; the former, though causing some unresolved conflict between the operation of divine foreknowledge and the actual occurrence of an historical event, disassociates God from any involvement and participation in the acts of sinful beings.

What is silly is to assert that a God of grace decides the eternal torment of another on no other grounds other than His absolute sovereignty.

My position is that the God of Calvinism veils a fictitious offer of love to men condemned to an inexorable decree behind a hidden purpose in virtue of His omnipotence over creation.

[ May 28, 2002, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Nelson ]

 

Chet,

Do you consider Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "little hero" of the Christian faith? Just whom do you consider a "big hero"?

I wouldn't be surprised if you don't have much respect for men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, James Petrigru Boyce, B.H. Carroll, Albert Mohler, etc.

I for one would rather stand on the shoulders of giants of the faith instead of standing beside spiritual pygmies.

By the way, I don't recall you stepping up to the plate and admitting that Dave Hunt is lying about Spurgeon's view of particular redemption.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

Nelson,

Thanks for dealing with the issues. I appreciate it. And I've noticed through the years that Arminians come up with the cutest little stories.

To further clarify - I believe when the Bible says that man is spiritually dead in sin, the Bible means tht man is spiritually dead in sin - and I believe it to mean dead with all of the attributes that go with being dead.

Do you have a different definition of "dead"? I would assume so since you evidently believe man can repent and believe prior to being regenerated spiritually, or born again(from above). If my assumption is incorrect, please explain.

Thanks.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

[ May 25, 2002, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton - Ing ]

 

Chet and lorelei...tell us, WHICH Christ do you stand for? For many false christ have gone out into the world.

christs are sorta like noses...everyone has one, but they're not all equal.

connieman

 

I'm glad you, at least, like my stories.

If Ken truely believes the sinner to be spiritually dead "with all of the attributes that go with being dead," then it should be noted that not only would it be impossible for him to believe but it would be impossible for him to not believe.

 

Post deleted for personal attacks. Keep your comments on the topic and not on the person.

[ May 26, 2002, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Ken Hamilton - Ing

I have respect for Paul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Luke, Jude, David, Samauel, Job, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Gideon, Deborah, Samson, Ruth, Ehud, Jonathan, Solomon, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Timothy, Onesimus, Whoever that person was who wrote Hebrews, I could go on... but most of all Jesus Christ.

 

Chet, I am glad to see you have changed your mind and now agree with all those biblical personages who believed and preached particular redemption! Who says the age of miracles is past?

 

No; no; I doubt it unless he has improved on Christ, Paul, Peter, James, John, etc.

 

Let's keep this thread on the general topic of Hunt's book and perhaps whether or not he has rightly represented those whom he argues against or cites.

 

Chet, and others...as soon as we can acknowledge that not all christs are true Christs, according to scriptures, disagreements will be clarified. There are many false christs, other than the one of Arminianism. I could name a half-dozen off the top of my head, I think.

In the Name of Him who has saved His people from their sins by His death,

connieman

 

Dave says in his book that the Geneva Bible and the King James bible and other English Bibles have corrupt translation.

I wonder what he uses then.

by His Grace
mike