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!

Unconditional Election And the Invincible Purpose of God

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Monergist, Dec 29, 2002.

  1. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry said
    Later Pastor Larry said
    Seems to me that if it is a fair criticism of Hunt that he has not read the reformers and is thus unqualified to evaluate them, then it is fair to criticize you and say that you are not qualified to evaluate Hunt since you have not read him. I am not defending Hunt's book (I have not read it either), but for consistencies sake, if you are going to critique the book, you should read it.

    [ January 06, 2003, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: swaimj ]
     
  2. Monergist

    Monergist New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Given the widely circulated documented errors that Hunt's book contains, I don't see that it's neccessary that one reads it before pointing out these errors. If confronting error or false teaching required reading all the material about it...well, one could see how the man of God would accomplish little else except--reading.

    I haven't read the book; Fifteen bucks, or whatever he's getting for the thing, just seems a little steep for something that I know to be inaccurate. It'll show up in a discount bin somewhere soon; maybe I'll look at it then.
     
  3. BeeBee

    BeeBee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,
    I see where your coming from, because I own the book, and I wish I would have read some of the refutations before I read the whole book. It would have saved me some time. In my opinion he does not even try to answer the 'real' positions held by the reformed position, and showed a great amount of ignorance (in an educated sense) on the 'real' positions of reformed theology.
    In Christ
     
  4. romanbear

    romanbear New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Pastor Larry; [​IMG]
    I'm glad your not for ecumenism. [​IMG]
    You know the whole reason that I don't like the Catholic faith started, when a Priest told me that only the priest could interpret God's word.This being told to me by a man I wouldn't follow out of a burning building...I thought about this for a long time and could not understand why.When someone who drank, smoked, used bad language and had several DUI convictions would be more capable than I, to understand scriptures.The Bible wasn't written for the elite it was written for us common folk. My grand daughter understands it. So what's so complicated. She's only 9 years old and loves Jesus with all her heart.She wants to be a Sunday school teacher.I remember Christ speaking about the little children how we as little children could come to Him and in no other way could we come to Him.
    We all sit a our computers working with knowledge that we all just barely understand forget, that if we don't come to Him as a little child and not some intellectual we will all be lost.Salvation is for the repent heart, in a child like fashion. Not for someone who is so full of knowledge that we stumble over truth and miss it all together.
    Our God is limitless. He is infinite. His Love is like no other. He........ is.......... awesome!.
    I've written to you on several occasions here and we don't always agree but, I for one would like you to give me your own opinion of Dave Hunts book, What love is this.Besides don't you think you are able to form your own opinion.If you let others dictate your faith and there not right you could be in for surprizes. [​IMG]
    Romanbear
    Peace
     
  5. TheTravelingMinstrel

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romanbear, I fail to make a connection of your post to this thread (maybe I missed something, or maybe it was something from a different thread, i don't know)

    I hope that you are not getting that reformer doctrine is elitism, which is not.
    one of the key dotrines is "Unconditional Election"
    Which is quite the opposite of elitism.

    Election is not "God choosing only the best", but God choosing out of His own pleasure.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have said that I did not read the book, that I am citing the comments of others. However, the comments from many different sources all say the same thing. I am not citing one person's opinion (which incidentally is what it would be if I read it). I am citing the opinion of many different ones who have read and interacted both with Hunt and with the book. These men are far more qualified than I to speak about the issue. I have stayed away from specific conversations about the book precisely because I have not read it.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bible is both simple and complex. Elitism is not the issue here. No one is arguing for that. But people should not write books about things they are unfamiliar with.

    I have formed my own opinion. Hunt's book is not a matter of faith. No one has dictated my faith. I have read what has been said about it and I know that it contradicts what I believe Scripture teaches. It has been documented that he has not been entirely straightforward with the facts or the representations he makes. Again, the "elitists" as you put them are probably the ones best qualified to answer this.

    This book is convincing to many becuase they have not read the history. Therefore, they take Hunt's word for it when they should not. Many men who have read the history, who know precisely what Hunt is talking about say that Hunt has gotten it wrong.
     
  8. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    I took courses in seminary on Church History and Mr. Hunt is absolutely correct and is right on target.

    It is because he has unveiled and routed Calvinism that some hate his straight forward manner, backed by Scripture and even the testimony of Calvinists in high esteem, at least among their own thinkers.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    What seminary did you take these courses at? The scholars of church history have documented the errors of Hunt's book. Perhaps you simply learned error. That appears to be the case. Perhaps your seminary that you are so unwilling to name had it wrong. It is no wonder you are loathe to name it.
     
  10. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,

    My professors let the text speak for itself. Credible professors select well written and documented history books before they place it in the hands of their students. Why would an evangelical Christian professor look for an unreliable text? Humm

    Dr. William Grady wrote the text, "Final Authority." Incidentally, he was reared in a strict Roman Catholic home and was saved and baptized in 1974 at the Marcus Hook Baptist Church near Philadelphia. Please, note he is a Baptist with a Ph.D. from Baptist International Seminary. This material is not from Mr. David Hunts book.

    'Historians will generally point to the attendance of three British bishops (those of London, York and Lincoln) at the Council of Arles in A,.D. 314 as the earliest recorded presence of Christianity in England. The British monk Pelagius (c. 360-c 400) is also recognized as the earliest proponent of man's free will (as opposed to the systems of his contemporary, Augustine and Reformation-era Calvin).

    Again, not Mr. Hunt but a real, live Baptist is saying that Calvinism reaches back to Roman Catholic/Augustinianism. {"Final Authority," Grady Publications p. 117} It is time to take the scales off the eyes.
     
  11. TheTravelingMinstrel

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    And Also, you can't just make statements like "have routed Calvinism" w/o support, and especially (from what I can gather) that he did not even record reformed doctrine correctly, then how therefore could he 'rout' it.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently not based on what you have said here.

    Your further citation of William Grady only further weakens what credibility you had. It is amazing that you, claiming to be a PhD candidate are citing William Grady as a source. I heard Grady speak when his book first came out and my pastor at the time (who was strongly KJOnly) said it was one of the weakest presentations he had ever heard.

    It seems they are looking for sources that support a position, not ones that conform to reality.

    Grady's credibility aside, that is not at all what you have cited says. Grady says that the earliest proponent of the "free will" theory is not until 360-400. He does not mention Roman Catholicism in that quote. How can you claim something is "biblical" when it didn't start until 360 by Grady's assessment. You would be better off getting some credible sources Ray. Grady is probably worse than Hunt, and I have read Grady. It was an abomination of an attempt to defend Scripture.

    [ January 07, 2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  13. romanbear

    romanbear New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Pastor Larry; [​IMG]
    Sorry my work has kept me away from my computer which is why I came here late.
    A quote from you;
    ________________________________________________________________
    The Bible is both simple and complex. Elitism is not the issue here. No one is arguing for that. But people should not write books about things they are unfamiliar with.
    ________________________________________________________________
    I believe that James White said the same thing about Gail Riplinger.When James white was only aware of the fact that she didn't have a degree in theology.But he refused to take her priviate study in consideration.
    Elitism is the issue when Calvinist believe that they are a special few chosen of God for no good reason other than His pleasure.No one has ever answered how they Know they are chosen.I can understand how God when he sends someone to hell for a good reason.His pleasure is not a reason.No where in scripture can you link this with people going to hell.In fact Christ grieves over the lost. I do not call greiving good pleasure.No one I have ever known when they have worked so hard on something just ups and destroys it for there pleasure unless there is something wrong with it.It 's really strange that Calvinism didn't exist before Augustine.John Calvin and Catholicism are from the same bolt of cloth.God's word say's that you can't get good fruit from a corrupt tree and "Calvinism is just warmed over Catholicism"(A quote from Dave Hunt.)The very fact that you are willing to take the word of others and refuse to read the book proves you have the same attitude as the Catholics do about there priest.The Catholics are miss led because of it.It's there fault because they are to lazy to check it out for them selves...You take Calvin's word for it when His view was a Catholic view...Have you always relied on the teaching of others as truth?.I look at every possibility in the Bible.I try to let scripture explain it self.When men try to explain it some get it right and some don't which is why it's important that we look to the Bible as the final authority and not man.I disagree that the Bible is complicated.It's only complicated to those who don't have the holy spirit to lead them.Don't get me wrong I do not have complete understanding.God does though and if you ask He will see to it that you have the understanding that you need.My disagreement with Calvinism is the simplest parts of scripture.God doesn't expect us to be Biblical scholars to come to him.I believe those who are wrapped up in Calvinism have studied it so much that they can't see the forest for the trees.And most claim it because they think they know what it is.I mean no insult by this last statement.I'm only trying to get you to see the truth.We are not Christian untill we make a full surrender to Jesus Christ.A choice that is freely ours. Gods atonement is limitless. We are elected after we make a choice.Yes God knew us in the begining but, Calvin did not understand omnipresents.God does not have any limits. God knew who would choose him but, you do not.We are elected because we chose him.Salvation is eternal as long as you don't choose to go the other way.God gave us free will.If Calvinism were true then you don't even have to believe because God will make you believe.Somehow I don't think God is that desperate for followers.There are alot of us who are willing. [​IMG]
    Romanbear
    Peace
     
  14. TheTravelingMinstrel

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Election is NOT the 'special few chosen'

    Don't try and keep saying it is, because it is NOT.
    So drop the elitism already.

    IF you think that it is, you have a poor understand of remformed doctrine.

    what do you think "unconditional election" is?
    Unconditional election is he choosing us based nothing upon himself.
    You know you are elect because you are saved. Any Christain is an elect.

    Why God chose me over pagan Bob nextdoor? I don't know, He just did.

    God chose to regenerate me and I was then able to respond to God.

    When we become aware of God, we cannot resist His grace.

    Also know that God is God, and he does as he pleases. He created the universe because it pleased him and He saved many because it pleased Him.

    remember that God loves Himself more then man.
     
  15. Jacob

    Jacob Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you don't believe that God in eternity past selected a few chosen people that Christ died for, and the Lord extended his Grace to and who the Lord will preserve and give eternal life to?

    Jacob.
     
  16. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Traveling Minstrel,

    Greetings to the man living in the Green Mountains of Vermont.

    A statement like {'from what I can gather'} means that you like Pastor have not fully read the book written by Dave Hunt, if at all. I'm only on page 127 and can easily see that he has ground Calvinism to powder.
     
  17. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    You pointed this out, but I'll expand on it a little here. Ironically, election is the antithesis of elitism. We are "chosen" according to the inscrutable will of God. God has not revealed the reasoning behind His inscrutable will in this matter, but He has revealed that His choice has nothing whatsoever to do with any merit we have. So it is a logical contradiction to believe in election (at least the way the Bible teaches election) and say that we are chosen because we are the elite.

    [ January 07, 2003, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]
     
  18. TheTravelingMinstrel

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, they are white now (the mountains).

    And if you want to make statements like "ground Calvinism to powder "then you best be prepared to back that up.

    I said "from what I can gather", is, what also Paster L. is saying is that David Hunt did not record reformed doctrine correctly.
    In which, he would not be qualified to 'ground calvinism to powder'
     
  19. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    This whole emphasis on hunt being "unqualified" and totally ignorant of the Reformed position is way overblown. I found the book to be mostly truthful, though I don't agree with everything he says. For instance, he does uses hyperbole such as "Calvinism is just warmed over Catholicism" as was quoted above. But I think all of this is being overgeneralized into him not knowing anything he's talking about, and so "misrepresenting" the other side.

    As for being "unresearched", When Calvin was being questioned, we were told the question was not "Does this person teach what someone else taught?" but "Does this person teach what Scripture teaches?" Of course the assumption is "The answer is that Calvin did teach what Scripture taught regarding soteriology. Your problem is not with the words of Calvin but rather with the words of Scripture.", and this is coloring people's treatment of Hunt. White says on his site "do you not think [all the great historical Calvinist leaders to the present] have heard these objections", but on the same token, Hunt and the rest of us have heard all the Calvinist position over and over, often rubbed in our face in a glib "that's tough" tone, so this whole issue of being researched in Reformed doctrine is a smokescreen. He is responding to what its advocates are saying today. (Problem is, many of them have actually shied away from some of the harder aspects of their own position as historically posited!)
    All of these "reputable" authorities who told him not to publish the book and then "refuted" it happen to be Calvinists, and they obviously don't like his straightforward approach to the ramifications of Reformed theology, true or not.
    Unfortunately, the Calvinist side seems to have the most scholars, and the more Arminian contemporary evangelical church is, as White, Hanegraaf and others have rightly pointed out, suffering from a state of doctrinal apathy, ignorance and indifference. So just like in the CCM debate, the proponents of some "offensive" doctrine (whether traditional hynms only or limited atonement) take advantage of this, and heap up all the "scriptures", arguments and "documentation"/research to back up their interpretations, (But remember, this does not guarantee truth, as as all the cults use this method too, and it can be misinterpreted) and the other side remains largely silent, or uses weak cliché arguments ("music is neutral"; "God limits His sovereignty", etc). (On the opposite end of the Arminian spectrum is the old-line fundamentalists, including the radical KJV fringe (Riplinger, Grady, Ruckman, etc), who are anything but apathetic, but instead come out worse than the others.) Then this is the ultimate proof that the "hard" position is "just right"; "this is just what the Bible teaches, and you people have no answers, but simply resist it because you don't like it", "you believe whatever your mind thinks is the way it should be" etc.
    So when someone finally comes out with a strong answer, the other side (caught by surprise) is aghast, and lashes back defensively (you should see the responses of some CCM critics I have written to, who make a lot of strong criticisms themselves, but can't take it back). The first thing they do is try to dismiss their "credibility"; after all, 'everyone knows' that all the scripture and historical/hermeneutical, etc. evidence always favors our side. If you come to a different conclusion, you have really misrepresented something. It just can't be! (What if Hunt had been well documented and researched? What about someone else who is? Oh, But such a person couldn't possibly be a non-Calvinist, right?) That is the attitude I am sensing here. (Actually, all of the scriptures we are accused of "having no answer for" we have answered. You may not agree with our reading of it, so we can argue as to interpretation. But don't keep saying we are totally baseless and you have all the scripture)
    White and the others' responses focus more on these side issues than on the right interpretation of Scripture! It's like that's all they can really "refute" him with.
    Do they challenge Calvinists who have not researched the issue and say inaccurate things but agree with them? Would they tell them not to publish their writings? No, they would be assumed to be on the side of the "truth" and automatically "right", "qualified" and "informed".

    And I don't know how White and others can even challenge his tone, or unfortunate statements Hunt made construed to question the salvation of Calvinists, or cry "misrepresentation" when Calvinists are the ones totally trashing Arminianism, and its "weak god", "sovereign man", "works salvation" etc. Once again, the attitude is that this position is infallible, and the other side so false so how DARE anyone think they can truthfully answer us back, even in the same fashion we responded to them!

    Once again, as for the "misrepresentation", there is nothing Hunt said that does not accurately reflect at least SOME Calvinists' position. The problem is, there are so many variants of Calvinism, just as here when we speak of people being "elected to Hell", right away everyone jumps in disclaiming "hypercalvinism". So I modified my language, but some still generalize Calvinism as election to Hell, because that does still seem to be the ultimate ramification of it (And BTW, White affirms that position in his comment on Rom.9 in Potter's Freedom and how "sovereignty" "pulsates through these verses brushing any free will proponent aside", or something like that. Yet this is the type of triumphalistic rhetoric Hunt is being criticized for)
    The prime example they focus on is something he quoted Spurgeon as saying. Spurgeon holds the hybrid view that many here hold, and some things are contradictory (even though they don't see it that way). So when Hunt quotes one thing he stated, White and others can go find something else, and say "see, he doesn't teach that; Hunt doesn't know what he is saying' he is lying through his teeth"!
    But everyone claims their variation is the "true" Calvinism, and if you're going to deal with Calvinism, you must answer our exact representation of it, else the whole person's teaching is dismissed as "dishonest", "misrepresenting", "not knowing anything about our position" and "unqualified to say anything about it". (A quick way to "win" the argument by default!)
    But Hunt's book is addressing all of Calvinism, from Hyper on down, and didn't feel necessary to differentiate between them. (Vance's book does a somewhat better job of that, and still shows they ultimately lead back to the same thing).
    Just remember, when Calvinists like begin making their sweeping statements beating up on non-Calvinism and its "man centeredness", and how it has eroded the truth, etc, they don't then disclaim the lesser distinctions between the different branches of Calvinism, --which all agree on "sovereignty" (however they express it) and therefore are treated as being on the same side (the side of "truth") in the ultimate issue of "sovereignty" versus free-will; so they should not then get mad and cry "misrepresentation" when the other side responds and lumps them all together in one rebuttal.
    If you all agree that the "non-elect" had no chance to be saved, whether God actively reprobated them against their will or passively preteritioned them according to their will, and that this is one of the distinctives of "sovereignty", then that is what Hunt and the rest of us are rebutting, and I think Hunt was basically on the mark in that objective, even if everything he said was not completely right.

    [ January 08, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
     
  20. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I don't agree. The non-elect have a real chance to be saved. They will, however, all obstinately refuse to take that chance, but that doesn't change the fact that if they believe, they will be saved.
     
Loading...