Books on Calvinism/Arminianism

Had you bothered to read it, you would know that very little of it is written by James White. </font>[/QUOTE]Had you read my post closely, you would have noticed I nowhere claimed White runs the website or writes it. I said it is his mouthpiece. It is far, far from objective. And yes, I have read it and have long been familiar with the diatribe contained on the site which purposely took the web address it did deceitfully. And, had you examined the contents of that site more carefully, you would also have noted that They idolistically repost and promote much by James White. Of the 16 links posted on their contents page, 2 are articles by James White and one is a promotion of his book, "The Potters Freedom." Only links by "A Calvinist Friend" have equal time. Once again, my friend, anybody who told you that site is objective is playing fast and loose with the truth.

 

Pastor Larry, its a good thing I noticed it was you that posted all the above, or I would have thought it to be a personal attack. We all know that as the moderator of this forum that you would never stoop to that level, don't we?

 

There was no personal attack there. As you are accustomed to doing, you take things out of context. When those comments are taken in their context, you find that they are not personal attacks at all. I did not call you names. I did not call you stupid. I did not call you a liar. I said nothing about your intellectual capacity or your person. I did not say anything about your personality. I confined my comments to your methods and your beliefs, as we all should do.

I did call you unethical because you were when you twisted my words making it appear that I said something I did not say.

I did say that your positions are based on misunderstanding, which they are.

I did point out something that didn't make sense becuase you contradicted yourself.

I did point out a place where you clearly did not tell the truth, but even then I did not call you a name.

I did say that you missed the point I was making because you did miss the point, instead making another point. I simply tried to bring you back to the original point.

Simply put, those are not personal attacks. You unfortunately chose to use some methods that are unacceptable in this forum. I cannot let that go unchallenged. I won't tolerate it from myself and I won't tolerate it from you. More than once in this forum I have had to go back and issue a public apology when I spoke in haste and misquoted or misrepresented someone. I am not above doing that. No one here should be. It is quite easy to post something quickly and misread it. Perhaps that is what you did above. If so, then just say so. It is fine. I certainly don't care if you misread something. We all do. But when you twist my words and try to make me look stupid when in fact you were in error, that is a problem. And that is why I said what I did.

It is also quite common for both sides to point out misunderstandings and missed points. That does not now, nor has it ever constituted a personal attack. If you think I misunderstand what you believe, then please point it out. You misunderstand what I and most calvinists believe. I simply pointed it out. Like it or not, you are not the authority on what I or most other calvinists believe . I am. So let me speak for myself and when I say You misunderstand, take my word for it. I am not an authority on much, but I am an authority on what I believe.

You are quite correct that I do not engage in personality debates or use personal attacks such as calling people stupid or unbiblical (though I might say a view is unbiblical). I do not even use the word heretic or heresy to describe things I disagree with, something which you did just a few posts ago and I let it stand even though it is unacceptable.

So even though you spoke in sarcasm, you were in fact quite correct. I do not stoop to the level of personal attacks. Neither do I twist people's words or try to make them out as believing something that they do not. I hope that you will follow my example. I have asked you to help raise the level of dialogue. I realize that my post to your was very direct and to the point. It was intentional because I want you and everyone else to understand that as believers and brothers, we have duties to handle other people's words as they would handle them themselves. You have an ethical obligation to be painstakingly honest. If you have to twist someone's words to make a point, then you should not make that point. Make another one. There is no reason for personalities or persons to be brought into it. Keep your discussion on the topic and keep it ethical and honest.

 

No sir, I want to talk about the hell that is real, and hot -- the one where their worm dieth not and their fire is not quenched. I want to talk about the truth and share it with them. And if I am teaching/warning others about the JW's, I don't want to speak in their terms, but in terms that those I am speaking to will understand.

Some are, but most assuredly some are not. Calvinism is not the definition of Christianity or its gospel.

If not sinful, what is it when someone calls him a liar when he speaks the truth, or says that he misrepresents truth when they have not done their homework and cannot show a single instance of that?

The word "biblical" means what the Bible says. When the Bible says that the Lord bought the False Prophets and False Teachers, what do you think it bought them with? When the Bible says,

Then how can you say that it wasn't a payment for the sins of the whole world and call that kind of doctrine Biblical?

Will you claim like John Gill that all those at the cross were elect? Each soldier, each head-wagging Pharisee, both thieves and all onlookers? Jesus prayed from the cross, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Was this an unanswered prayer? Forgiveness for sin cannot be extended without basis in the atonement and be just. Did the Father forgive their sin? Yes, I believe He did because Christ's prayers are answered. But both thieves were not saved, and all at the cross were not elect.

Actually, the word you are looking for is abiblical, that is they are outside of the Bible. They are not unbiblical in that they contradict the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Then I used the term "unbiblical" wisely and appropriately.

As you said, words mean things. Different words -- "limited atonement" versus "Particular Redemption" -- mean different things. As stated in my former post, most Cals I am familiar with prefer the terms "Particular Redemption" because of exactly what Dave Hunt is pointing out -- they do not believe Christ's atoning power was limited in ability, but in scope. I bow to their desires in that regard and use the terms "Particular Redemption" when wanting to distinguish the Calvinist view that Christ died efficiently for a particular few.

Wow. And here I was thinking that Cals believed that it was original sin that sends one to hell. Looks like you have corrected me on another one, Pastor Larry. Now, it seems to me that you would believe that no man is lost until he actually sins a sin. Is that correct?

 

You da Mod, man! But please remember that you are the example as such.

 

But until you understand what a JW believes about hell, you don't know that you disagree and you cannot confront them adequately. That is my point exactly. You are trying to confront Calvinists based on misconceptions about what they believe. You are talking right past me becuase you are not properly representing my beliefs.

It is sinful.

The bigger question is what does "bought them" actually mean? There are discussions about that from both sides.

But notice that it says a "propitiation." A propitiation is a satisfaction, not a potential satisfaction. "World" is often used of groups of people. It does not always refer to everyone without exception. It also can be used to refer to everyone without distinction. But either way you take it, neither I nor most Calvinists denied that Jesus died for the whole world.

 

Except that you misunderstand him if you think that this particular quote is used to show Calvinist contradictions. Hunt himself tells you what he is using this quote to prove:

"Today there is growing division on this issue, most Calvinists insisting that Christ died only for the elect. On the other hand, IFCA International, a group of about 700 independent evangelical churches and 1,200 pastors (some of them Calvinists) declares in its doctrinal statement, 'We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind...to accomplish the redemption of all who trust in him...." Spurgeon himself, so often quoted by Calvinists to support their view, rejected Limited Atonement, though it lies at the very heart of Calvinism and follows inevitably from its other points--and he did so in unequivocal language:

"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. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discerns no shore....Having a divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice."

According to his own words, Hunt is using this quote to show that Spurgeon rejected [what Hunt thinks is] the central tenet of Calvinism--the doctrine of limited atonement. To say that he is just using it to show Calvinism's contradictions is in direct contradiction to what Hunt himself says his purpose is.

BTW, the IFCA statement does not contradict limited atonement either, and if DH thinks is does, he is mistaken there as well.

Please tell me you don't disagree with this statement! Could God have saved everyone? Of course He could! Did he save everyone? Well, if He did, then there will be no one in hell, will there?

If you disagree with the sufficient/efficient distinction, then your only option is universalism. Even the standard general atonement theory makes the sufficient/efficient distinction. It just says that Christ's death was sufficient for all, but actually efficacious only for those who believe. In the standard general atonement theory, it is one's act of believing that makes the atonement efficacious for them. If the atonement is efficacious for everyone in the world--they are forgiven their sins, then everyone in the world is saved.

If the sufficient/efficient thing is unbiblical, how is Christ "especially the Saviour of those who believe"?

I read the whole thing. There is nothing in that article that is inconsistant with Calvinism. Various Calvinists interpret those verses differently. And most Calvinists would agree that there is a sense in which God wants everyone to be saved--He certainly does not delight in the death of the wicked. But, as Spurgeon says in that sermon:

It is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved.

It is not God's sovereign will that all be saved, even though it does not please Him that men perish.

I'll tell you what gets me "all up in arms" and its not a good argument against Calvinism. It's when I have to keep on explaining that whatever it is someone is arguing against is NOT WHAT I BELIEVE! That's why I quit reading this book in the first place. Why would I bother reading something that spends so much time arguing against things that neither I--nor anyone else I know--believes?

 

Okay, you are looking at page 19. Look right at the facing page, that is page 18, at the bottom. Do you see that he is quoting Spurgeon negatively? Isolating one quote, you are trying to make it appear that Mr. Hunt is claiming Spurgeon as a non-Cal, but that is far from the truth. In the very context, he has already demonstrated strong disagreement with Spurgeon, but that these Cals are inconsistent, even among themselves. Have you not noticed that all stripes of them lay claim to Spurgeon? While CHS was alive, that was not the case. James Wells would accuse Spurgeon of Arminianism.

Notice the paragraph which immediately precedes the Spurgeon quote you looked at. Do you notice the words "growing division"? Do you see how he is contrasting what most Calvinists insist upon and the statement by IFCA International? If you look at the quote of Spurgeon on the facing page 18, you cannot miss the fact that Mr. Hunt is not adopting the venerable Bro. Spurgeon as a non-Cal.

But what you cannot see, and may never be able to see, is the obvious contradiction in Spurgeon's quote. The glaring contradiction that is so obvious that Cals must make a distinction the Bible nowhere makes between what the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient to do, and what it is efficiently doing in order to harmonize the two conflicting ideas.

I am not sure whether you took your quote from the book, or went to a website and lifted it for your post. If the book, then please go to chapter 16, page 249 and read the section entitled "Was Some Of Christ's Blood Shed In Vain?. There you will find Mr. Hunt speaking about exactly what you claim he does not understand, and even quoting Spurgeon again, to boot. Here, let me give you the applicable quote.

If you care to review the chapter in its entirety, he will even deal with Particular Atonement beginning on page 250.

Your Calvinist friends jump all over his quote of Spurgeon in chapter one, claiming that Mr. Hunt does not understand either Calvinism or Mr. Spurgeon. Why do you reckon they are so unethical as to not mention his quote of Spurgeon and explanation of his Calvinist belief in Particular Redemption in the chapter on Limited Atonement? I suggest it is that they are so desperate, they have to do the same thing they do with the Scriptures -- lift passages out of context and misdirect your attention.

In Chapter One, Mr. Hunt is not making a distinction between Atonement sufficiency and Atonement efficiency. He is developing his topic on Calvinism in general and has not at that time gone into the specifics of Calvinist atonement models. He is speaking to a non-Cal audience who will read Spurgeon saying, "Having a divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice" and see it as a contradiction of the idea that the atonement can be limited. Later, when he explains the Calvinist's unbiblically supported idea of sufficiency/efficiency, he will explain Spurgeon's take on that. But that occurs in its proper context in its proper order, when he is discussing Calvinist's ideas of atonement -- NOT when he is opening the chapter of his book explaining why he wrote it to begin with!

No, it is not my only option, though you Calvinists would love to believe it to be so. What I believe is Biblically based and is more appropriately a subject discussed in a different thread.

I have read some who believe in your so-called "standard general atonement theory." Once again, I find it sadly lacking in Biblical theology because the Bible nowhere makes that distinction. As Spurgeon said, I see two lines. In this case, I see that the Bible states that he atoned for the sins of the whole world, yet the whole world will most certainly not be saved. To me, the Bible does not contradict and one statement does not prohibit the other.

Claiming not to see it, I see that you did find the passage I was referring to since you go to such great pains to defend against it. Here is the specific quote:

Sorry, but Spurgeon explained himself that this was an apparent contradiction with his own "doctrinal views" and Calvinist "orthodoxy." Not simply a disagreement on a single Scriptural interpretation.

Not having gotten beyond the first chapter, how could you know that he is arguing against things that you do not believe? You mean you don't believe that "for anyone for whom Christ died to spend eternity in the lake of fire it would not only be a double payment and a violation of justice but would mean that Christ's blood was shed in vain."?

But that is no real matter, because I have the idea the book was not written for you to read, anyway. It was written as a warning to those who may otherwise be suckered down the fatalistic path of Calvinism.

 

I didn't say I didn't get beyond the first chapter. I said I hadn't read through to chapter 16. I did read far enough to come across these misrepresentations (and you will have to forgive me, but I do not have a copy of the book, so I cannot do direct quotes): </font>

• Calvinists believe the offer of salvation is only for the elect. This is untrue. Calvinists believe the offer of salvation is for absolutely everyone, without exception.</font>
• He uses the words "select few" to describe those who Calvinist think will be saved. Personally, I believe there may well be more in heaven than in hell, and so do many calvinists.</font>
• He suggests that Calvinists believe that God doesn't love the people he doesn't save, and that God damns people because He doesn't love them. Untrue. God loves all people. People are not damned because God didn't love them. People are damned because of their own actions, not God's. People are damned because of their sin.</font>
• There were more, but I am without text and can go only by memory.</font>

Don't you see that right there you have a sufficiency/efficiency distinction? The distinction is not in the same place that the calvinist puts it, but it is there. You are saying that the atonement could save more people (sufficiency) than it does actually save (efficaciousness). The sufficiency is not equal to the efficiency. What limits the efficaciousness of the atonement in your theory is unbelief. (See, you are not a universalist, because you do indeed make this distinction. If you did not make this distinction between S/E then you would be a universalist.)

If it is not a contradiction for you, then it is not a contradiction for the calvinist. Since sufficiency (the number who could be saved) is measuring a different thing than efficiency (the number who actually are saved), saying that they are different is not a contradiction. (For something to be a contradiction, it has to be able to be put in the form of A = nonA, or A is not equal to A. Saying A is not equal to B--where A and B are not equivalent--cannot, by definition, be a contradiction)

Where you and the calvinist differ is in what limits efficiency. The calvinist says it is the intent which limits the efficiency, you say it is unbelief in the unsaved that limits it. But the S/E distinction is still there in both theories.

Let me give you a couple of examples from real life to show that this is not that hard to understand, and that "limited in intent, but infinite in value" is not a contradictory statement. (I am not trying to convince you of the doctrine of LA, just trying show that it is not logically contradictory).

We have a roaring fire in the wood stove in the dining room right now that is heating up my whole house, keeping my family warm. It would be sufficient to keep my family, my neighbor's family, my sister's family, several of my children's friends, the mail carrier, etc. etc., all warm IF THEY WERE HERE IN MY HOUSE. It is able to warm a lot more people than it is right now. Its sufficiency at this moment is greater than its efficaciousness, because its efficaciousness is limited by the number of people who are in the house. It is the relationship of the person to the house that makes the fire efficacious for heating them.

Another example is the pool at the aquatic center. We could buy a yearly family pass there for one price, and every single person in our family could swim all year on that pass. A family pass would be sufficient for a family of fifteen--or even more, but that's the largest family I know. However, since our family only includes 5 people right now, it would only by efficacious for 5. The sufficiency of the pass(the number it could let into the pool) is not equal to the efficaciouness (the number it actually does let into the pool) It is the relationship within the family that makes that pass efficacious, because the intent of the pass is to allow a family to swim. If I adopted 5 children, they could swim with us on that one same pass, but 1 measly little neighbor child could not, because the neighbor child is not in a relationship to the family that makes the pass efficacious for him.

See! Not that hard to understand how sufficiency and efficacy can be different. It is not a contradiction. It is really not even confusing.

Calvinists believe Christ's death is just like that. It is being identified with Christ--the "in Christ" relationship that makes it efficacious. It saves all who are in Christ, who are identified with Him in His death and resurrection. Whether the group "in Christ" it is more or less in number is immaterial, because it is not the number but the relationship that counts. If only one person throughout all creation and through all history were "in Christ", that same one perfect sacrifice would be required to save him; and if every single person throughout all creation and throughout all history were "in Christ", that same one sacrifice would be sufficient. Christ's death is unlimited in value--no matter how large the number of of people, it would save them if they were in Christ; but it is defined in purpose--it's purpose is to save the group of people who are identified with Christ, and thus its purpose does not include saving those who never identify themselves with Christ.

Christ is publically displayed as a means of propitiation for the one who has faith. He is proof before the eyes of all that there is a just (or righteous) way for God to justify men. This is a beautiful truth, and it is the "sufficient for all". There is a bridge all the way across the river and it is not a drawbridge.

But its not the end of the story. It is for those who are in Him that Christ has become wisdom from God--that is, justification and sanctification and redemption. This, too, is a beautiful truth, and it is the "efficient for the elect". There is a bridge all the way across the river, and those who by God's doing are in Christ Jesus are carried across.

 

Russell55, I think you and I would likely find more to agree when all was said and done, than we would disagree on.

Enjoy your holidays.

 

When I read this statement, I couldn't help but recall another thread about the Purpose Driven Life book. I had commented on this book, admitting that I had not actually read it. Pastor Larry said that seemed "out of place" to him.

Pastory Larry, I am wondering now, what is your position on speaking out about books you have not read? These comments appear to contradict the statement you made above.

The following quotes were taken from this thread.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=003150#000004

Think maybe you should have taken your own advice?

Or did it merely suit you at the time to hold the opposing viewpoint because that gave you an opportunity to try to make my opinion look uneducated?

The thread asked what books you would recommend, not which ones you would not. Is it really that difficult to let other people read it and make up their own mind? Really, could Dave Hunt's book possibly deceive one of the elect?? If not, then why the fuss?

Back to the original question, I too would recommend "What Love Is This" by Dave Hunt. I have actually read it.

For those of you who might read books that offer opposing viewpionts, go ahead and read them. Either way, NO book can replace God's Word in explaining true doctrine. I would remind the readers of ANY book to compare what the writer has to say with scripture. Not with Spurgeon, Calvin, or Hunt, but with the Word of God.

~Lorelei

 

My position is what it was then ... do adequate homework by 1) reading the book critically or 2) reading a variety of reviews by well-established reviewers who you have learned you can trust.

The impression given in the thread you reference was that you were taking your opinions of the book merely from what some people on this forum were saying. That was not a fair representation of the book. As I said at the time, I was uncomfortable with aspects of it, but I appreciated the emphasis.

If you look back at that, I said I read "part of the book," not even all of it. Which supports my contention that it is not necessary to read everything. There is a lot of trash and tripe out there masquerading of Christian reading. Find people you trust and read reviews of books.

Think maybe you should have taken your own advice?</font>[/QUOTE]I did. I read numerous reviews and am familiar enough with the issues to see through it.

I have no interest in that at all.

Nope, but when people read books that are deceptive and misleading, it is dangerous for them. And in threads such as this, it is customary to offer opinions about the various books being suggested.

Not with respect to their salvation, but certainly with respect to the truth concerning this issue.

Becuase of the possibility that someone might be led astray by false teaching and misrepresentations. And because the truth is mishandled. It is not simply enough to say, "Well it won't really hurt anyone." When the truth is mishandled, then it is wrong, even if no one knows about it.

The danger of Hunt's book is that people view him as an authority and well studied. They view the copious footnotes as evidence of a well-researched and thought out book. It is neither. It should not be treated as such. And you don't have to read it to know that if you read reviews and conversations about it.

Hope that clears up your confusion. This position about reading is not new with me by the way. I actually first read it in a classic theologian (who in particular I can't remember) from the 19th century I think. And there were far less books then than there are now. You simply can't read them all and it is certainly not profitable to try. Read reviews and pick carefully.

[ December 19, 2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Lorelei,

The problem Calvinists have with Dave Hunt's book is not that it argues against Calvinism. Its that he is spreading misinformation about what Calvinists actually believe. So its hard for people to read this book and make up their mind about Calvinism, since its not true Calvinism that is argued against in this book, but a charicature of Calvinism. And it is not only Calvinists who level this criticism....

And of course his book could deceive one of the elect. It won't keep them from coming to faith, but it can certainly confuse them. Just because someone is elect doesn't mean they have all their ducks lined up.

 

This is one of the major problems with Calvinism. Calvinism stresses God’s sovereign control (with a misunderstanding of sovereign) over every one and thing. They stress that God’s perfect will must be executed by divine force without exception to the free will of man concerning Salvation. The good pleasure of God seems lost once salvation is over. I suppose that God would desire for the elect to be deceived. His control has seemed to cease after Salvation.

This is patently false. But as already illustrated by PappaBear, personal attacks seem to prevail when the argument is lost. It is always the first accusation by Calvinist - that non-Calvinist just don’t seem to understand. I guess all us non-Calvinist are so incapable of understanding this doctrine. This doctrine is supposed to be what Salvation is. We are in trouble! Furthermore, Dave Hunt does understand Calvinism as his book is full of the Calvinist very own words.

Dave Hunt has never presented himself as an authority. But this is quite contraire of James White. James White makes it known of his achievements, perhaps in an attempt to make people (like you) think that they are so authorities that what they say is the truth.

The dander of James White and his Calvinistic books are that people view him as an authority and well studied. They view his copious footnotes as evidence of a well researched and thought out book. They are neither. They should be treated as such.

 

This is exactly the problem. It simply isn't true. I can understand why you agree with him, because you share his views. But as a Calvinist, I can assure you that Calvinists do not think he has properly understood and reflected their position and that is damning evidence against him.

Remember the rule is Say only about your opponent what he woudl say about himself. Hunt has grossly failed in that and the defense of people who agree with him won't change that.

This is disingenous. He wrote a book because he thought he had something that he knew enough to write about. He considers himself well equipped to discuss it. Of course he considers himself an authority.

 

Mine was the fourth post on the thread. The first post asked what drove our opinion on the book. It offered no comments or opinions. The second post said they knew nothing about it. The third post gave one bad and one good thing about the book, not one of them referring to my opinion about the book.

The next post was mine, in which I quoted directly from the Purpose Driven Website and said that those quotes alone were enough to turn me off from reading it. How did these four posts draw you to the conclusion that my opinions were based solely off of what people in the forum were saying?

~Lorelei

 

I didn't go back and read the whole thread yesterday, so I was wrong on the particulars of how you got there. I read your post that youl linked to and then went from memory. Quite frankly, I simply don't care about the particulars because it is irrelevant to the point here.

My point stands both then and now. Whatever your point is, that's fine as well. It doesn't matter to me. I am quite sure that this has nothing substantive to do with this conversation. You thought you had trapped me in an inconsistency. It turns out that you didn't (which is one of the wonderful things about being consistent, even when you don't consciously think about it).

My point in the other thread was about talking about something one doesn't know anything about. I think you admitted that was the case, having only looked at the website. I, in fact, shared some of your concerns. On the PDL, I had looked at the website, read part of the book, talked to others including a man who was doing it in his church. On the book in question here, I do not "not know anything about it." I know quite a bit about the book, having read a number of reviews from both sides, having seen Hunt defend it several times, and having talked first hand with those who have read it.

So my point stands: You don't have to read everything. Just listen to people who, by their qualifications and history, have shown that they know what they are talking about.

 

There are a few problems with this argument. The first one is that he is not spreading misinformation about Calvinism. He merely shows the reality of the conclusions that must be drawn if one believes Calvinism. Calvinists tend not to like those conclusions, so they deny them and call them a misrepresentation.

The second is that in portraying Dave Hunt in this light, you are misrepresenting Him in the same manner in which you accuse him of misrepresenting Calvinism. However, there is a difference in approaches. Dave Hunt and his supporters will let readers make up their own mind. Those who dislike his book will attack Dave Hunt (and his supporters) in a personal manner and try to discourage people from even seeing what he has written. Let me give you an example.

I have listened to both James White and Dave Hunt. If you go to Whites website you will see an entire page dedicated to Dave Hunt. You will often hear him mention Dave Hunt on his radio program as he attempts to refute Dave's claims against Calvinism. When you read Dave Hunt's newsletters or listen to his show, you will hear him challenge the doctrine of Calvinism but you will not hear him personally attack those who oppose him. He will not mention White personally, but rather he will mention a doctrine that White believes and show it's error scripturally.

I have made this comment a long time ago in another thread about Dave Hunt but it appears it needs to be mentioned again. We can sit here all day and discuss mere men who have written books without the divine inspiriation of the Holy Spirit. If we talk long enough, we will find some faults with all of them, for after all, they are mere men.

Every Christian should be responsible enough to know God's Word in order to discern true doctrine from error. If a person is not at that level of maturity, they should continue studying the Bible, not be encouraged to read books about what others say it means. Other books should never replace the Bible for doctrine. If another book is needed in order for your doctrine to be understood, there is a big problem with that doctrine. It isn't scriptural. Though other books can be beneficial in clarifying some things, the basic doctrines are crystal clear in God's Word. If you want to convince people that Dave Hunt's book is wrong try a scriptural approach. Dave Hunt addresses alot of scripture as well as quotes from teachers of Calvinism. Why not address those?

Either way, it isn't christ-like to attack a person's character in the way it has been done on this thread. Why not use Christ's example? He often addressed the Pharisee's as a whole, but not once can I recall him signaling out one Pharisee in particular and crying out to debate him or attacking his personal character and intentions, as some Calvinists have tried to do. Let us discuss the doctrines in question, not the people that believe them. That is the scriptural and mature manner in which any topic should be disucussed.

~Lorelei

 

...then speak as an authority on a book you haven't even read.

Funny stuff.

 

But those who know Calvinism have shown that Hunt has not shown the "reality" of conclusions, but rather things he has made up in his own mind. That is unacceptable. He has been shown time and time again to misrepresent the truth. In so doing, he is most certainly spreading misinformation about Calvinism.

No, becasue the things that Hunt has said are verifiably inaccurate. The things that others have said about Hunt are verifiably accurate. There may be some who have misrepresented him and I will not defend those. But there have been many who have taken him head on and Hunt has so far refused to modify his approach.

I haven't seen anyone personally attack Hunt. He did put this stuff in print against advice from people who knew what they were talking about. When you put something in print, you have to accept that people are going to interact with it.

Which undermines Hunt's whole approach. He is convinced that we need another book to show how his doctrine is true. I contend we don't need it. We need simply to believe what the Bible says.

This has been done many many times.

Have you forgotten how many times Scripture addresses individuals?? Paul had no problem naming names. We do people a great disservice when we do not point out (expose, as Paul said it) those who are teaching contrary to biblical doctrine.

This is a good practice. Didn't Hunt violate this in his book when he went after Calvin and some of his supposed practices in Geneva??

The heart of the issue here is this: Is Hunt really discussing Calvinism? Or Is he really discussing his own idea of what Calvinism believes? Most people who know Calvinism contend it is the latter. And that is problemmatic.

I have long said this: Say only about your opponent what he would say about himself, and then refute that. Don't make up his position for him and try to refute it. Establish the common ground.