what makes a person believe?

His interpretation of Acts 13:48 is wrong because it is wrong. It is unethical because of the way he went about trying to prove it.

This book by Hunt is filled with this type of stuff. I take it you are not interested enough to read the review of it.

When Calvinists make false statements about arminians, they should be treated the same way. The problems with Hunt's books go far deeper than theological disagreements about the particulars. It goes straight to the heart of ethics and integrity.

Several problems with your observation. The fact that God does not "make" them believe does not mean that they gravitate toward them. The "opening of the mind" is called regeneration. It is the impartation of spiritual life to the spiritually dead. It is what causes one to come to God. As sure as a living man breathes, so living souls come to God. As sure as dead men do not breathe, so dead souls do not come to God. It is not a matter of "making" them do something. It is simply that they do what is natural to them. Dead souls naturally go away from God. Living souls naturally come to God.

Second, the hardening does not make it clear that people who could otherwise come do not come. The fact is that unhardened people are still unable to come and please God according to Scripture. While many have tried to reinterpret those various passages, it just doesn't stand up under close scrutiny.

 

Pastor Larry,

You have read a review of "What Love Is This?" but this is a far cry from studying the book from cover to cover. You are merely using second hand information and then set about proving that Mr. Hunt's exegesis is wrong, that he has wrongly used quotes from other sources and so on.

You have no basis to make your thoughtless statements, especially if you are depending on someone else's critique of Mr. Hunt's writing. I may be wrong but I think you are afraid to think about what other people have said, because you might have to change some of your 'party line.' Fear not; if your theories are right, you will prove to yourself that you are correct in your understanding of the Bible.

You still did not answer whether or not this book is on your library shelf.

I have the book in hand and Harry Bollback co-founder with Jack Wyrtzen of Word of Life International says,

'As a biblicist, I find this to be a refreshing Biblical review of things which for many years have brought confusion to believers. We've allowed words and ideas of men to determine our positions. This book reminds us to listen to what the Word of God has to say.'

'And here we find again, looming over Calvin, the long shadow of Augustine. In "Election and Predestination", Paul K. Jewett calls Augustine "the first true Predestinarian.' from Dr. Paul K. Jewett, "Election and Predestination" William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985 ed., p 5.

'Of Calvinism's central doctrine of salvation through Irresistible Grace and Unconditional Election, Loraine Boettner declares, "This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine.' Dr. Loraine Boettner, "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932) p. 104. Here is a Calvinists admitting what some of you Calvinists refuse to even think. There is a clear connection from John Calvin and his Institutes, back to the Roman Catholic theologian, Augustine. Dr. Boettner is most definitely a Calvinist.

These last two paragraphs are taken from "What Love Is This?" from chapter fifteen, page 222.

I don't know if Dr. Jewett is a Calvinist or an Arminian, but his statement is worthy of consideration.

If you do not believe the statements and credibility of Mr. Hunt, then go back to the original sources of Drs. Jewett and Boettner and you will see that the quote is not taken out of context.

Regards . . .

 

Ray,

You seem to have this bizarre obsession with Roman Catholicism. Assuming you were correct (you are not) that one can equate Augustine with the Roman Catholic Church, you somehow think that you can discredit Calvinism simply by its association with Augustine and, in turn, Augustine's association with the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, let's be consistent, Ray, and see what would happen if we really named things true or false by association with the Roman Catholic Church.

Do you realize that your current views on soteriology are most closely aligned with the Roman Catholic views on soteriology today? That means YOUR views, by association, are closest to having their origins in the Roman Catholic church. If YOU were to join the Roman Catholic Church today, you'd fit right in.

So if you want to call a view error by association, you're setting yourself up for a fall...

 

But you and others are kind of making it sound like it was wrong (not to be believed), because of this supposed "unethical" means. Once again, whether Robertson believed it or not has no bearing on whether it is right, but that is what critics have been solidly focusing on.

Read plenty of reviews of it. Most focus on his methods more than the doctrines.

But they're not. They are assumed to be on the side of the truth of God's sovereignty, and are not so trashed, (and not even by the other side either.

But then the act of "regeneration" IS the "making" of them to do something; especially if "living souls" DO naturally come to God, as you acknowledge.

You may believe that, but I was also making a point regarding all the other Calvinists who do identify "hardening" with the "inability" to come, and why Arminans respond as they do.

 

Great point Eric.

I would love to hear Larry explain what it is about man that make him come to Christ once he can see. Romans 1 clearly show us that these reprobates did clearly see and understand the things of God yet denied Him, yet Calvinists try to claim that men can't clearly see and understand such "spiritual" matters. That just gives them the very excuse Paul has eliminated in this passage.

 

Oh, now I found your reply.

Don't you mean it doesn't stand up under bias scrutiny. Romans 8 doesn't say what you need it to say Larry and I think you know it. It can simply mean that WHILE men are living in the flesh they can't please God. It doesn't have to mean that they can't please God by leaving the flesh and turning to faith once confronted by the POWERFUL gospel message. Just admit it Larry, you have no biblical support for such a doctrine.

 

Ray,

So we should understand you to support the unethical methods of Hunt? We sho0uld understand you to support his total lack of scholarship and integrity in writing? That is amazing to me ... I cannot imagine how anyone can support that.

I have long ago answered your question about this book. I have read part of it. I have not wasted my money on it. It is a bad book. Hunt was told by people not to publish it. He did anyway.

I daresay you are too scared to read and interact with this review. The review is right on target. You need to give serious though to your own integrity if you can continue to support Hunt and his writing. You need to give serious thought to your own curiosity if you continue to refuse to read this review.

I have made no thoughtless statements. I have thought through these matters for many years. And I have shown them to be true from Scripture. I have not needed to depend on bad academics, and unethical quotations to try to prove my point.

 

I think you may be confusing the conversation. When I have talked about ACts 13:48, I have talked about the verse itself. Hunt's lack of ethics came in when Ray quoted Robertson (probably taken from Hunt's book). Hunt misquotes Robertson. Robertson actually agrees with me (or I with him more precisely). Robertson does not agree with Hunt or with Ray. Ray is being unethical to use Robertson to support his understanding. Robertson refutes Ray's understanding when you see the whole quote.

Because his methods are so bad. But his doctrine is as well. Addressing doctrine and refuting is usually not included in a book review. Those things are found in other books. A book review is for the purpose of evaluating the book, particularly with regards to its author's methods and depth.

I haven't seen this. I have seem any Calvinistic author lambasted.

No, it is "making" them as in coercement or force. It implants in them spiritual life that has a natural outcome. It is not coercion.

I have seen many (actually haven't seen any) Calvinists who equate "hardening" only with inability. Most, to my knowledge, say inability is innate; hardening is not. Most say the hardening is the judicial hardening of God because of rebellion. IF you know a calvinist who says otherwise, please let me know.

[ August 04, 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

npetreley,

You said, 'Do you realize that your current views on soteriology are most closely
aligned with the Roman Catholic views on soteriology today?'

Ray: Yes I do realize this; it is to the credit of the Roman Catholic Church that they have evolved much closer to the truth as to the Doctrine of Salvation. Augustine, John Calvin and Calvin's mentors have remained in theological error.

We live in a day of enlightenment, because we have scholars such as Drs. Alford, Robertson, and Wuest who have gone over the Greek with a 'fine toothed comb' and have more clearly explained God's truth to us. Thanks be to the Lord!

The scales will fall off of your spiritual eyes if you give time to study the original language on some of these difficult Scriptures.

 

I explained this long ago. It is called "life" or "regeneration." It doesn't "make" him come, in the sense of coercement. When you are hungry, and you smell the food at the table, no one has to make you come. You come willingly and freely.

I think you are confusing the "see and understand." (Something I have pointed out before). Calvinists say that all men know that God exists and know basically what he is like. They reject him because of their moral inability. They are unwilling to submit to his leadership. Sin has deceived them. Until the blindness is removed by God, they will continue down that path (2 Cor 4).

They have no excuse, and Calvinism teaches that.

 

The only people I've seen speaking of "judicial" other than you now, is Skandelon, Bro. Bill (months ago), and some others on our side. Remember, the rest on your side applies "God hardens who He hardens" to ALL "non-elect" as a foreordained class of individuals, and then when you press them on it, then comes the "inability" ("they didn't want to be saved anyway"), and then "hardening" is said to be just the passive act of leaving them in that state.

"Making" is not necessarily "coercement". At least I was not thinking of itlike that. You could say our hunger "makes" us get up and go to the table. Not coercement, not irresistabe, but still, naturally coming, unless lack of the senses prevents him.

 

That has been my reply for several years ...

No, that's not what I mean.

Yes it does. You simply will not accept it.

I suppose it can, but it would rape the context ... And possibility isn't actuality.

But that is what is says.

But I do ... The truth remains the truth.

 

And Robertson, as was already pointed out, was a Reformed Evangelical ... A calvinist. His fine tooth combing led him to the doctrine of Scripture ... which today is usually called Calvinism.

Dr. Robertson was a Calvinist—probably a moderate one—but a Calvinist nevertheless.
http://www.gospelhour.net/2061.html

I quoted him on the previous page already. It is time for you to stop misrepresenting him. As when Hunt did it, it is unethical to try to make someone appear to believe something they don't.

It is a shame that even has to be said here.

 

I take your point. We do tend to see double standards from our respective side of the fence, don't we?!

As a bit of background, I was raised in a typically Arminian Baptist church, and went to a typically Arminian Baptist Bible college. It was while there, listening to my well-meaning tutors railing against Calvinism, that I felt that rather than get it 2nd hand, I should hear from the horse's mouth just what the Reformers actually believed. What I found was a simplicity and integrity in handling God's word that I had never seen before, and which left both my Dispensationalist and my Decisionist theology standing naked and stripped of all the false reasoning that propped them up. The rest is history.

Why would I disagree that Luke meant to say, "as many (groups of people) God has appointed to eternal life believed."? Because for the life of me, I just can't see how the context could be legitimately stretched that far.

We have, as background data, the fact that God does have an elect people. You and I may disagree over the grounds upon which they are elected, but we do agree that there is such a group of elected individuals nonetheless, and of course God ordains those individuals to eternal life.

I agree also that here we see God demonstrating the fact that those individuals are to be drawn, not just from Israel, but from among all nations. Paul is preaching to a multitude of Gentiles at Antioch, though what the ethnic makeup of the crowd was, we don't know. However, for the sake of your arguement, let us say there were 3 or 4 nationalities there.

So what do you mean to say?
1) That 2 of the nationalities believed and 2 didn't?
2) That because these were "groups" not individuals that were ordained to eternal life, that every one within those ordained group(s) believed?
3) That all the groups were ordained to eternal life? (If so, why does Luke distinguish between them by saying, "as many as believed"?)

Honestly, I am not just opposing you for the sake of it. If there is a simple way to verify your "groups, not individuals" theory without doing violence to the plain sense of the words in the text, I would be open to it.

The difference between this instance and Jn.12:32 is threefold. First, "All men without distinction" is a perfectly legitimate option which does not force the meaning of "all men" in the least. Secondly, the context in which the Lord said these words points in that direction, & Thirdly, There is incontrovertable evidence which necessitates that we understand it that way (to wit, that all men without exception are not drawn to Christ." I can't see how you can make such a case for your slant on Acts 13:48.

Yours in Him,
- Paul

 

Talk short. Because I have to work tonight.

The question is, 'what makes a person believe?'

Simple, Romans 10:14 tells us, HOW shall a person hear the gospel without a preacher?

Why there are so many people are now in hell? Can't blame God for most people are in hell. Who's the responsible for sending more people to hell? Us. Why? Matt 28:19-20; Mark 16:15 tell us, Christ commands us GO and preach gospel to every individuals of the world, His desire to see every individual to repentance(2 Peter 3:9), that what the gospel for.

A person cannot make decison or to believe upon Christ till someone witness gospel to a person first.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

I think judicial hardening is what is is usually called. I have never heard it in any other context, I don't think.

I don't think so Eric. I think you are blurring the lines a bit here, at least in my experience. I don't think I would say that all the non-elect are hardened, though I would have to think about it a little bit, at least not in the sense that the Jewish nation was hardened.

I think that may be as close an analogy has I have ever heard. The unsaved have no spiritual sensitivity. They are dead in trespasses and sins. Their sins from birth have deceived them, darkened them, made them calloused so that they do not sense their true spiritual hunger. I reject the terminology of "irresistable grace." I prefer, as many do, to talk of the efficacious grace ... the grace that is effectual. It effectively draws to the table, just as the combination of hunger and the smell of the food. It is a joyous coming.

 

Revelation 20:17 and Ezekiel 3:19 points out that God does not regenerate a sinner before they come to Him. The Spirit of God draws or woos them to Jesus. The sinner must turn from his wickedness and the Spirit helps that lost soul to repent and to move in the direction of the throne of grace which is in Heaven. God receives all the glory and praise.

Deafposttrib, your post is correct and shows that you have a balanced theology.

Dr. Berrian

 

Forgive not reading all the posts, but "belief" is the result of experience plus data analysis: a conclusion. One does not choose what one believes.

 

Seeing and or hearing the Word of God as to the possibility of salvation is the data. After gathering the information the sinner evaluates what he is going to do. Will he believe it or reject it as so much religious philosophy. A person can and all saved souls have believingly trusted in Christ as personal Savior. [John 1:12] This is a cognitive decision made in the mind and heart of human beings.

'Someone wrongfully said, 'Forgive not reading all the posts, but "belief" is the result of experience plus data analysis: a conclusion. One does not choose what one believes.'

Ray: Your first sentence was correct; the last one is definitely not true.

If you go to work tomorrow you without doubt believe that your car will take you to your place of employment. You have chosen what you believed in this example. If you did not believe this you would walk to work.

Faith is reaching out to trust something greater than my sinful past; in our faith it is Jesus Christ with whom we trust for eternal life with Him.

 

Yes I remember and its still weak. It reminds me of Clinton's explaination of the word "is."

Really, Larry, come on. The words "clearly see and understand" here in Romans 1 mean something different than what you mean when you use the words "see and understand?????" How can that be? He is clearly talking about understanding spiritual matters because God is Spirit. He is clearly talking about clearly seeing spiritual truths. What is it you are talking about seeing and understanding Larry? Please explain the difference in Paul's meaning in the use of these very easy to understand words and you more complex hidden meaning.

That is not all the text says though. It says they clearly saw and understood the divine attributes and eternal qualities of our God. It goes on to show that these men were created with a sensitivity to what was right and wrong (called a conscience) which can become calloused or hardened and lost over time when ignored. That does not fit with your doctrine of Total Depravity Larry. Nor does it fit with human experience. As one who has worked with children and youth all my life I can tell you they are much more receptive and willing to accept the truths of God then adults are, that is common knowledge. Why? Because they have not yet grown hardened.

In 2 Cor. 4 it speaks of a veil, right? Tell me Larry does one turn to the Lord in order to have that veil removed or does the Lord remove the veil so that the man is able to turn to the Lord?

I believe that when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

You can say that until your blue in the face but it doesn't make it true. What better excuse does any one have before any judge than the excuse, "I had no choice." or "I couldn't do anything else" or "I didn't know or understand." It is the most common list of excuses known to mankind and all of them are true of the reprobates in the Calvinistic system.