What Love is this? By Dave Hunt

That is exactly my point. Many make claims for Calvin which he did not claim for himself.

I call myself a Christian and I try to folow Christ. But one can claim to be a Calvinist and not follow Calvin?

I do not equate Calvin with the Bible at all. To do so is heresy and idolatry. To be even called a Calvinist is idolatry.

I have never read or known anyone who is obedient who would buy into what many today call Calvinism and carry it out in a practical sense. An obedient Christian cannot lead that kind of life and be content. I have met too many who do not share their faith because they see it as useless. I do know some who add a sixth point called evangelism. Even Calvin himself wrote that to take his teaching too far is dangerous.

 

Of course one can.

That's just plain silly. It's just a label that used to describe our soteriology. We do not worship Calvin, and we do not equate his writings with the Bible.

 

Larry;
This is a very dishonest statement;

Why would I run from you Larry. Should I be affraid of you. The fact that either you fail to understand what I proved, or just refuse to accept it, doesn't make me scared of you. You have not done what you calimed. You have falsely accused me of running Larry. Here I am Larry do what ever you want to. I certainly have no fear of you. I do not fear what any man can do to me.
In The Light Of Christ
Mike

 

</font>[/QUOTE]What's dishonest about it? For 12 days I have pointed out clear errors in Hunt's book and you have run from them. You have refused to address them. You have tried to change teh subject. You have responded with unproven charges of your own against me. And you have ignored them. Why are you running?

I don't think you are running from me. You are clearly running from the truth, and you ask why? Because you got caught. You don't know how to deal with the clear evidence I presented (of which there is much more). And so you run. It is easier to keep making these kinds of posts that you just made rather than digging in and dealing with the issue.

Not in the least.

You have failed to prove it, and your silence has been deafening.

Then show us how it is wrong. Use Hunt's book (and remember I have it right here so if you say something it will be checked out). Answer the examples given.

Just to remind you what you have failed to deal with (for starters), I will repeat them.

1. You said no one has ever given page numbers and examples of Hunt's misrepresentations and distortions. Yet, I had done that, and had posted an article that had documented it very well. Why did you make this very clearly false statement and then refuse to admit you were wrong? Someone had given page numbers and examples as far back as 2003. Why did you say differently?

2. You said that I was making false claims against Hunt's book. Yet I have documented everything I have said about it, showing clearly that they are not false. If you think my claims are false, then why have you not used the book to demonstrate it?

3. You said I attributed a quote of Spurgeon to Vance. Yet I clearly did not. The quote of Spurgeon came from his autobiography. The issue of Vance dealt with a quote of Calvin. Why don't you show where I attributed a quote of Spurgeon to Vance? That should be the easiest one of these three. But rather than show it, you run from it. I know why you don't show it ... because it isn't there. But you aren't honest enough to admit you misread or didn't understand the original point.

Simply put, Mike, you have run from these three issues (and many more, but these will suffice for now). Rather than answering, you play the "he did it too" game with me. Why not just admit you messed up? That would go a long way to restore your credibility.

 

I understand. But the fact is the majority of "Calvinists" have never read Calvin's writings.

I do not even attempt to equate my soteriology with Calvin but rather draw it from scripture. I canot always equatre what Calvin taught as being equal with scripture especially in light of the historical context of Calvin. In some ways I beleiev he did not fit the evangelism model Jesus taught. If we had things his way we would have a situation in our country much like the Taliban did in Afghanistan.

If what you believe is exactly the same as Calvin and you are a Presbyterian then you could name your theology whateverism. Whatervism would be equal to Calvinism. But I find as I study scripture I cannot ever equate what I know and learn with a fallible man. Isn't that popery? The issue is not what does calvin stand for but what does scripture really teach in light of its historical context. Scripture preceded Calvin by more than 1400 years.

I see no need to identify with any fallible theologian but with Jesus and the scripture as my authority for faith and practice. Personally I think Calvin should have been buried when he died. It is to exalt his theology and person rather than Jesus. To exalt Calvin even in the minutest way is idolatry.

Calvinists and any other ...ists remind me of "For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one."

 

Larry;
You are falsely accusing me again.

This is not true Larry I proved you wrong and so did a Calvinist. You're not only falsely accussing me, but you also have falsely accused Dave Hunt. The fact that you cannot comphrehend this is not my problem. I have not run from you or the truth in fact, I enjoy the truth. It is you that can't face loosing the arguement. It is your false accusations that are just plain wrong and unchristian like. All of the information you used to support you claim is false. All anyone has to do to know this is read the book. You won't do that, you'd rather take someone elses word for it. You haven't proven your claim you have just shown your ignorance of the entire matter.

In The Light Of Christ
Mike

 

Where? It certainly wasn't here.

show where. I have clearly and plainly documented what I have said. You keep running from that.

I do comprehend it. There is no honest reason why you could say I wouldn't. You simply don't want to address the three clearly documented problems I have listed.

Yes you have. Here you are posting yet again why dodging the issues. All you can do is make personal attacks taht have no basis in reality.

"Loosing"???? Really ... The word you are looking for is "losing," and I haven't lost. I have shown the evidence and you have no refutation.

Show one false accusation. I will lower the bar for you. Forget about the three for now. Just show one.

I have the book on my desk. I have looked at these issues. That is how I know I am right. I haven't taken anyone's word for it. I have the same edition you do.

Really?? You have been caught yet again being dishonest. And then you send me a PM with a personal attack. And the funniest thing is you can't even spell that right. Mike, you are way out of line. You are not honest enough to stand up and face the music. I have been extremely kind and patient with you. I have given you every opportunity to back out of this in a gentlemanly and Christian way. All you had to do was say "Hey, sorry, I didn't read closely." But now, for 12 days you have stood by a position that has no basis in truth. This is the easiest debate I have ever had on this forum. It is in black and white on teh pages of the book you have and I have. This is not about some obscure Greek meaning, or about some point of interpretation of the biblical text. This is not even debatable. You are truly shameful. I shouldn't be surprised, given the number of conversations I have had from you, but somehow I always expect the best. Silly me ...