What Love is this? By Dave Hunt

Larry;

Unlike you I have to yeild to my job or I soon would be on the welfare rolls. My life doesn't revolve around this debate. It obvious to me you posted with out looking.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

The accusations are documented. They can be clearly seen to be true, and therefore, demonstrate that you are wrong.

Incorrect. I don’t care whether he opposes Calvinism or not. People who oppose Calvinism have pointed out that Hunt wrote a horrible book with misrepresentations, false statements, and bad argumentation. In other words, people who disagree with me about Calvinism agree with me about Hunt. You should as well.

This is not a mere matter of making a few mistakes. These problems were well seen in advance. He had no reason to not know. He claims to have researched this. This would not pass a high school research classl.

This is simply a statement of ignorance or willful dishonesty. The “mistakes” have been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Typically bad argumentation. The truth of history depends on history. What you get in a book is an interpretation of the truth of history. But that’s irrelevant anyway.

Again, a repeated and fundamental mistake. Calvinism is not about following Calvin. Why do you keep saying that?

No kidding … I have been saying this for a very long time. It is exactly what Calvinism teaches.

This is totally irrelevant to the point at hand. Hunt claims that Douty was listing more than 70 leaders who opposed Calvinism. Douty did no such thing. He listed 70 leaders who advocates of general redemption. Those things are very different claims, which you should know by know. Secondly, Hunt’s claim regarding Douty means that Calvin and Augustine were opposed to the thing that Hunt said they were for. In other words, Hunt’s citation of Douty leads to a contradiction in Hunt’s own writing.

You don’t to have to be impressed … but this gives clear evidence that Hunt was not accurate in his book. And it gives clear evidence that shows you didn’t tell the truth when you said no Calvinist has shown these errors. It has been shown.

According to what Spurgeon said at the time this would be true.
"I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds. " by Charles Spurgeon.</font>[/QUOTE]In yet another display that neither Hunt nor you are familiar with the issues, notice what Spurgeon was talking about: the merit of Christ’s blood. Limited atonement advocates agree with Spurgeon that the “merit of the blood of Jesus” is unlimited. The discussion about limited atonement has nothing to do with merit, but with efficiency. By know, you have been here long enough to know the difference. Why do you not?

The very next page following this quote from Spurgeon in Spurgeon’s writing, we find this from Spurgeon: “To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice.”

So Spurgeon very clearly affirmed limited atonement. You can find it on p,. 172 of Spurgeon’s autobiography. Hunt left that out and as a result misrepresented what Spurgeon really believed.

Bologna! No such conversation or quotes in my copy a first edition. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you really just not get it, Mike? What in the world. Follow with me here: Hunt cites Calvin as affirming an unlimited atonement. As proof, on p. 253 he attributes it to Strong’s Systematic Theology p. 260 and says, “For proof that this is an authentic quotation, see Vance, op cit., 467-68.” Follow me so far? Hunt quotes Calvin out of Strong and says that Vance verifies that this is an authentic quotation.

However, when you turn to Vance, pp. 467-68, you find Vance saying “Strong acquiesces to Richards’ opinion that Calvin acceded to the theory of universal atonement in his later years, and then spuriously quotes Calvin on 1 John 2:2. In their zeal to make Calvin a four-point Calvinist, a quote of a quote is all the evidence given. This quotation by Strong is also acknowledged by Calvinists to be spurious.”

So what Vance actually says is that Strong’s citation of Calvin is a false citation. Calvin never said that. So the article rightly says, “Hunt cites Vance for proof of his position when in fact Vance arguing for the very opposite.” This shows that Hunt’s statement on p. 253 about Calvin and limited atonement is clearly a false statement.

Acts 13:48 obviously. I made a clerical error of memory. Hunt’s are not in that category, as you should know.

My goodness Larry I still disagree with you. You are simply mistaken. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you are mistaken. Whatever you think about Calvinism, Hunt’s book is bad. The proof has been shown.

Have you read the article and compared Hunt’s book with everything he cites? You should.

He has, and it wasn’t through Hunt’s book. Mike, this is such an easy discussion it is remarkable. If you defend Hunt's book, you have no credibility whatsoever. This is obviously a very poorly researched, poorly argued, and poorly written book. There is no doubt about that.

 

Unlike me? You really want to start comparing schedules of work? I don't think you want to go down that route Mike. My life doesns't revolve around this debate. In fact, I rarely post because it has become so silly and so repetitive. I got involved on this thread because of the topic. It was an easy thread that take very little time.

You are clearly mistaken ... yet again.

 

Larry;
If I said my bible is black you'd say it was white having never seen it. You're wrong, I just disproved your false claims.

Mike

 

That doesn't make much sense? Why would I comment on something I haven't seen? I have seen the proof regarding Hunt's book. I have shown it to you. You have not been able to refute any of it. The only thing you have done is change the subject and ignore. That is hardly disproving. The claims are objectively true. You can look them up if you were actually interested in the truth.

 

Larry;
There is no point talking with you about this any longer.You're never going to take an honest look at what was actually said anyway. Your mind is made up. Matter closed.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

It is hardly scholarly to take the word of another person in your denomination or even someone who thinks theologically as you do.

One must read the document or book before you can try to make an unbiased decision on what another Christian scholar thinks.

Second hand information is useless and places that one in a bias column, to say the very least.

 

You have verified the article by reading the book?

 

Larry asks:

Why are people so loathe to actually read the material involved?

Answer:

Simple. When you have clowns like White as your spokesmen, what do you expect? When you have Calvinist kooks on the internet claiming Arminianism and Arminians are heretics and probably not saved, what do you expect? When you see Calvinists lie over and over again, and get mad because someone thumped their false doctrine real good, what do you expect???

Calvinism breeds pride. It is the stuck-up theology of those who display a vanity easily offended. But worse, it is blasphemy, plain and simple, and it reduces God to a caprious tyrant. Caqlvinism makes our Lord a Sovereign devil, rather than a Sovereign God.

 

Mr. Hunt takes time to exegete the N.T. passages that Calvinists like to quote. The parts of his book I like best is he documents his statements with Biblical texts and explains the difficult ones that Calvinists have trouble explaining and understanding. This is what makes them furious! It destroys their 'wood, hay and stubble' theology that is obvious to those who study the precious Word of God.

When you fight Scripture remember you are fighting against the Lord God. Your denomination has no power to get you into Heaven.

Calvinists need to try to remember that God and Satan are at opposite poles, and do not even come close to touching each other, if you will.

Calvinism makes God a co-Conspirator with the Devil, in the latters desire to land people into the flames of Hell. In fact, Calvinists believe that the Lord can do just fine all by Himself without any help from 'the great dragon' [Revelation 12:9].

'The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance' [II Peter 3:9].

Believe it or not, the Lord God put the words, 'any' and 'all' in this passage for His Divine purpose. This just might mean that God is at opposite poles as to what His will is verses that of the cunning diabolical one called Satan, the prince of darkness.

Light and darkness. Do you get it?! Good and evil. Sin and righteousness. Heaven and Hell.

 

Bad argumentation; You assume that "honest look" requires your outcome. That assumes your conclusion. It doesn't work. My mind is made up because of my study of Scripture. I have seen nothing here to dissuade me from what Scripture has convinced me of. If that makes me "closed minded" then so be it. You have yet to marshall one solid argument against what I believe, and conversely, I have shown from Scripture the clear teaching. You disagree with me and that is fine. But whatever side of the theological argument you are on, the truth is that Hunt's book is bad. Do you really want the kind of weak argumentation, misrepresentation, and distortion that Hunt uses to support your side? I wouldn't want that for me. I cringe when I see JohnP posting in support of what I believe. I don't want that kind of argumentation on my side.

I have read parts of it. One hardly needs to read it all to see the problems. One should not waste their time reading inferior material.

The funny thing is that if you were interested, you could pick up the book and find out for yourself. But you, like Ray and Mike and some others, aren't really interested in the truth. And that is disturbing. You should be furious that Hunt wrote this book. You should be out of your mind about it. It doesn't reflect well on what you believe.

I have never considered White a spokemen. I haven't even read what he says about this. My doctrine is from Scripture, not from White or anyone else. And BTW, using "clowns" to describe someone hardly strengthens your argument. Good arguments are based on facts, not inflammatory langauge. Please resist that if you are going to participate here.

I haven't seen anyone claim this, but I don't get around that much. If a Calvinst claims an arminian isn't saved because he is arminian, then he's wrong. Period. Some arminians aren't saved, just like some Calvinists aren't.

I am sure some have lied, and I am sure some arminians have lied. But again, we are not talking about personal tactics of debate, but rather the substance of the issues.

This I have never seen so I can't comment. I have yet to see anyone "thump" Calvinism in any sense.

No it doesn't. It breeds humility because we know that we have no reason to be chosen, just as you, if you are saved, had no reason to be chosen. In the arminian view, you are chosen because you were smart enough to choose, and that brings pride.

This is pure nonsense and has been refuted many many times. You can certainly disagree without stooping to this.

 

Pastor Larry:

You referenced a second hand source and continue to argue about the book. It is very poor scholarship to quote a second hand source and arguing on the basis of someone else's opinion of the book. I hope you do better than that in your preaching. I do hope you study the Bible instead of reporting what someone else wrote about it.

Never did you answer the question, "You have verified the article by reading the book?"

 

And this exegesis has been shown to be inadequate. It would not pass any Bible college class.

As has been documented, much of his documentation is based on distortion. FOr instance, his comments about AT Robertson on ACts 13:46 were shown to be fraudulent. His "exegesis" of John 6 was shown to be inadequate. This is clearly documented, and you can see if for yourself.

You say the right thing here, but then you deny it by your belief.

Irrelevant since no one is talking about a denomination.

I think we are the ones who do remember this. It is you who forget sometimes. You have emasculated Satan in your effort to restore humanity to a place of neutrality the Bible doesn't teach.

This is a pure lie, Ray. How many times do you have to be told that this isn't what we believe? Do you really think you get to make stuff up? Please, carry on this conversation like a Christian gentleman. Do not make beliefs up becuse you think they are easy to refute.

Exactly. We believe this.

Any and all of whom? You see part of exegesis is identifying antecedents of pronouns. You have so far not really been willing to dig deep into Scripture. I hope that will change.

That is what we Calvinists have been saying all along.

But Hunt's book is still bad. This is undeniable.

 

First, I was not attempting scholarship. This is an informal debate. Second, secondary sources are acceptable in some venues, this being one of them. Third, the article does not talk about someone's opinion of the book, although his opinion is clear. The article documents facts, not opinions. You can,if you are interested, get the book and the sources cited in the book, and document for yourself that the article is correct. I can't help but notice you are not really interested in discussing the substance of the book, but rather the side issue of the article. Why? Isn't that telling? Why are you guys scared to talk about the book itself.

Why won't one of you explain why Hunt distorts quotes? Why won't one of you explain why Hunt misrepresents what people believe and said? Aren't you embarrassed by that?

I did answer this question. I said I have read part of the book. I have read numerous reviews of the book. I have talked to people who have read the whole thing. So yes, I did answer your question.

Now, do you want to talk about the book itself, or would you rather shoot the messenger? Believe it or not, I am not hte bad guy because I happen to point out problems. It is not my fault that Hunt has tried to pass this book off as a serious contribution to the issue at hand.

 

First, I was not attempting scholarship. This is an informal debate. Second, secondary sources are acceptable in some venues, this being one of them. Third, the article does not talk about someone's opinion of the book, although his opinion is clear. The article documents facts, not opinions. You can,if you are interested, get the book and the sources cited in the book, and document for yourself that the article is correct. I can't help but notice you are not really interested in discussing the substance of the book, but rather the side issue of the article. Why? Isn't that telling? Why are you guys scared to talk about the book itself.
</font>[/QUOTE]How do you know the articel documenst afcts and not just opinions. How do you know the quotes were correct. The JW's do that a lot with Christian authors to prove their point.

I am old enough to have seen a lot of liars on both sides of issues. Too often people believe what they want even when confronted with the facts. Few take the time to actually verify what they think are facts.

 

As I have said, I have read parts of the book. I have seen the same charges Hunt made made in other places and seen the refutations of them there. Most of what Hunt said was recycled tripe from previous works that had already been refuted. Remember, people who agreed with Hunt on the issue itself told Hunt not to publish this book because it was a very poorly done book. In addition, there is the credibility of the author of the article.

Simply put, you still don't want to talk about the issue itself but rather the little side circus. You hit Hunt right on the head when you said that people believe what they want even when confronted with teh facts. He is exactly that, as is Ray, Mike, and some others here. These really are not disputable facts. You can agree with Hunt's theology while recognizing that Hunt did a bad job. The author of this article took the time to actually verify the quotes, with original sources, which is why he points out that Hunt misused them, in some cases used secondary sources, in some cases cited the same quote from different sources (primary and secondary in different parts of the book, as I recall).

Now, do you want to talk about the facts of teh book, or keep distracting from the issue at hand? How would these facts change if I had actually read the whole book? Would the facts be any different? Would the quotes suddenly have changed? I don't think so, but perhaps I am naive ...

 

Well, you can verify whether this author is fair in his criticism for yourself. Hunt's book is available online here.

I looked at only one page of the book at this site as I was linking to it, and I found this (Section 16, first page):

Anyone reading the actual quote by Carson can see that Hunt misrepresents it in his lead in to it. Carson is not "drawing the line" at the doctrine of limited atonement. He's explaining why a particular label for that doctrine is "unfortunate".