Featured Hunt vs White

Of course you have nailed this response and showed the agenda that ACH has, sad as it is.
Someone might not want to agree with DR.White on an issue....however he has little trouble dispensing of these weak and lame attempts to disrupt the proclamation of the truth.I have been to several of His debates and he goes right through most of these men as if they were new to the faith.
When some here speak against him it is most times out of an ignorant hatred of him and the truth of God.Ignorant in that they never seem to answer the real issues at all...as we see here on BB quite often:wavey:

 

I am listening to it right now. And yes he does stroke his ego a bit.


I like Hunts response to White's question about the doctrines of the reformers. He said that he skips right past the reformers and goes straight to the Bible. He does not try to align himself with anyone.

 

Yes for sure. This is a constant battle on almost every area of doctrine.
One poster recently stated that he does not listen to Calvinist preachers??
Then how would he expect to learn or grow when he is ignoring some much truth?
Another poster claims he answers with scripture.When you look ...every post is riddled with wrong ideas about the scripture.Then the true verses get explained away.Others explain it to him and he writes them off. A couple encourage him in his error as if this a commendable thing

 

White works to tie any notion of free will to Catholicism. A very dishonest debate tactic. And that is all it is, a debate tactic. And Hunt rightly calls him on it.

 

James White treated him extremely kindly being he was biblically ignorant of the whole subject.You liked Hunts response when he said he did not read the reformers,and yet because he has not......clearly he was not equipped to deal with this issue.
He was having to be constantly instructed like a child.....which would be okay if he were a novice....it would not be a problem.
To be known as a christian author and remain completely ignorant of these teachings is an embarrassment.
His running away from Jn 6:37-44 tells all we need to know doesn't it???

For someone to say .....I go right to the bible and be this uninformed reminds me of one of my grandchildren saying he does not need lessons to drive a car...he could do it. I think this is why many remain biblically ignorant and settle for entertainment in the church be cause they can not endure sound doctrine.

 

Hunt rightly pointed out that it was not the issue. And discussing the reformers did nothing to ad to the discussion. He and you place to much importance on the reformers. He had no need to be instructed. That is the arrogance of Calvinism talking. He intentionally refuses to be bound by the false comparison of the reformers and Catholicism. And he said as much. Just because Hunt refused to be boxed in by White's system does not mean that he either had to be instructed or that he was not eqipped to deal with the issue.

The issue of the grace of God can and should be dealt with apart of any discussion of the reformers.

 

You are welcome to your opinion as I am of mine. It is not arrogance to state the truth.The TRUTH is...that Hunt was completely ignorant of the biblical position.He did need instruction.You make these comments often then dis -appear. Hunt could not answer....it was not him refusing to be boxed in .His responses were lame...in fact sad..
I find your repeated charges quite arrogant as you cannot back them up.

I responded to you on the other thread and you ran for the hills when asked to go over the text ...as Dave Hunt did. That does not stop you from putting your slant on things as if you are taking the high ground.

In the other thread you said...i did not make a clear case. I clarified it for you...asking how you see the Surety, Mediatorship,and High priesthood of Christ as not teaching a Covenant death as the whole 5 chapters points out in Hebrews as it leads up to Hebrews 10:10-14...and you left town ???

Now you accuse and put motives on Dr.Whites debate tactics...as if that was the issue rather than Hunt avoiding scripture like the plague.that is just to deflect from the failure of DH to answer anything at all....

I would say arrogance is doing what you are doing and not speaking truthfully about what was taking place on that broadcast. Dr .White was more than kind to him.

QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

To say this betrays a degree of naivete. The discussion would not have been on the reformers per se....but on the teachings that have been historically known....We believe what we believe and it comes to us through history to a large extent.Even if someone begins learning without having much knowledge of church history...sooner or later they are influenced by it.
I am more than certain that you have not re-invented the wheel, so to suggest that the bible comes to us in a theological vacuum as if reformers ,puritans and previous teachers have nothing to say....I think you need to look at that again.

 

Revmitchell

So any discussion of errors of the past should not be known or taught?

You RM would know all bible knowledge accurately without martin Luther or others clarifying some issues?

You would not repeat Roman error?

You would know which writings form the canon of scripture?

You would trust in what others post in here ahead of some of the teachers God used in times past?

You would only trust yourself?

You know of many people who just read a bible and "got it"...they understood all things?

When joseph Smith said the angel moroni appeared to him what would you say?

When a person told you they were a priest and they offered up and consecrated the host and it turned into Jesus body then what?

I think what you suggest is not shared by believers throughout time.

Everytime a new believer comes to you....how to you teach them?

You get people who come in at all different times and abilities.....what do you do?You never offer them any book or teaching from anyone else....they are just waiting for you to be the voice of clarity.????

You went to bible school and only used a bible, no books or commentaries at all???

 

White tries to begin the argument by setting up a false dilemma – his belief is obviously “grace alone” and he makes attempts of comparing a belief in free will to Catholicism. And, yes, as Rev Mitchel points out Hunt calls him on it, yet White goes back to ambiguously stating “God alone” meaning “grace alone without volitional faith/or irresistible grace” and again tries to define a belief in free will/the necessity of a genuine faith response to God as being ultimately limited or otherwise meaning having to have man’s assistance and continues with his fallacious argument – (False dilemma of only two specific viewpoints: If free will then man has a part in his salvation hence agreement with the Catholics).

White then begins with a ridiculous illustration and state he believes the guy at the bottom of the well is so dead, rotting, and stiff that he can’t respond but Hunt counters with multiple scriptures of Jesus weeping and pleading with Israel (the elect) but they would not. Hunt then asks White if he really believes God loves everyone and wants everyone to be saved or does He require billions of people to go to Hell that He could rescue? White avoids the logic conclusion to this question, says that is not the Calvinist position and then says God is loving is if He allows anyone to live past their first sin, then goes on to say everyone is born a sinner anyway, LOL, I want to debate this duck and jive turkey. :smilewinkgrin:

White then says God has a “special love for people called the elect” and goes into trying to proof text Calvinist’ dogmatic determinist interpretations regarding the “Doctrines of Pre-selected Grace”. Further, White double dodges the same point again and says it not an issue of God desiring to save but He saves every single individual He chooses to save - .i.e. meaning only the predestined elect.

Now the question of Hunt understanding of the Determinist system seems clear by the time of the break – so I’m wondering if the Calvinist opponent REALLY wants to use this debate to attempt to substantiate that Hunt was not prepared to deal with typical Calvinist dogma or was not aware of its true and "logical" content???

 

That is just false and facts are facts. Trying to equate not knowing what the reformers said to being ignorant of the biblical position is absurd and down right untrue. And yes that is arrogance. Telling the truth is not arrogance but how you do it can be. And as usual the Calvinist cannot speak without it dripping from the sides of his mouth.

 

James White did an excellent job of exposing the common errors of anti-Calvinists, as is typical. In this case Dave Hunt was exposed. Excellent job by Mr. White.

See this rebuttal also for evidence of Dave Hunts errors and vitriol if you dare:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1022CDNotes.htm\

Make sure to judge him with the same level of judgment you pass on White, only let it be honest judgment this time.

The only thing others have brought so far who are automatically against James White are pejoratives 'tactless, arrogant, egotistical, dishonest, uses 'slight of hand''', &c.

Then to top that off the same is said of reformed brothers here, as in the case of one bringing up instructing another who is in error then that person is called arrogant for doing so, all the while the one using the pejorative is also attempting to instruct as well.

James White refuted Hunt. The article above does the same. See if any anti-cals can actually stick to the substance in both and attack the FACTS not the person for a change?

The evidence is there. Hunts book is laden with caricatures, vitriol, calling salvation into question while trying to be subtle and not come right out and say it, whilst knowing little to nothing about what he is attacking. This is not unlike some on here who attack TULIP yet are only attacking a caricature of the doctrine since they don't really know what exactly the 5 points teach. They only think they are attacking TULIP and the same goes for Hunt. He's misinformed as well and is attacking a straw man.

 

Benjamin

Hello Benjamin,
It was not logic the James White avoided.It was the total ignorance of the question....in which he could have crushed DH if he were being arrogant.
This question which gets asked is so uninformed that is why I would call it ignorance....

For any man to question God's Holy Wisdom,Holy Goodness,Holy love,and suggest that God is not saving all he can justly , righteously, and with complete and perfect wisdom save is bottom line...an abomination.

That Dr.White did not stop and zero in on this question and expose the evil nature of it was very gracious.These kind of questions are exactly what I mean when I say Dave Hunt was ignorant of what the issue was.

No Calvinist believes God is austere and unloving.His Holy love is fully expressed in the Cross,and Ascension. there are so many things wrong with this question it would take several programs to address it....that is most likely why he skipped over it.

This is what cals mean when they say most non cals do not know enough to discuss the issue. There are many non Cals who would even cringe at this question also.

really....:laugh::laugh: You live 5 minutes away from Dr.Whites Church...just bring a tape recorder...I would pay to listen to the great Benjamin put Dr.White in his place:laugh:

Go on the dividing line and speak internationally...we could all listen:wavey:

 

I am not attempting to put words in your mouth Rob, but could one conclude that Dr. Hunt wrote the book as a means to make money, knowing full well that any attack on Calvinism would be motivation by dissenters to buy the book. It is obvious that he never really studied Calvinism to any scholarly focus. If so, that would be a sad commentary for the life of a guy wanting to go down as a Christian scholar because he will be relegated as a footnote in the future.

Still, dissent & conflict have their place ....it serves to synthesize different views into understanding, if done properly. :smilewinkgrin:

 

From where I sit it is you who keep making this kind of statement....

Instead of you listening and speaking up and being offended that DH speaks evil against God's eternal purpose in electing grace...you comment on the insignificant.
Dave Hunt and anyone else who asks such questions needs to understand that God's attributes work together.This question is fragmented thinking to suggest that our infinite God could do something in a better form....is THE Height of Arrogance...exceedingly sinful.

To point this out we are called names. Dave Hunt and others boast they do not read the puritans, confessions, etc...just the bible.....but I guarantee no puritan would ask such a sinful question and speak evil of God.

 

Yes ...good post but yet sad in that it is what happens so often.I am glad there are many who are studying themselves into the position and be blessed and grounded by the truth of these teachings.

 

Its a matter of actually studying them & THEN discerning if they fit, however there are a number of folks here who are proud of their ignorance ..... and that is the true hight of arrogance.

At the very least, try studying the subject matter before developing an argument! Bedside manners is no substitute for the right diagnosis.

 

Seems obvious to me who won this debate. White is obviously all worked up into his own anger that anyone would disagree with him. Hie ego over whelms him. While Hunt is calm and at peace with his answers. Prideful accusations from White and simple and Biblical answers from Hunt. White hasn't a leg to stand on as Hunt stands on the Bible.
This proves men who accuse others usually accuse of what they them selves are most guilty of. White stating Hunt's views are Catholic while his own views definitely are Catholic. This is a hoot
MB

 

Exactly! :thumbs: