Featured Hunt vs White

Hunt isn’t questioning these things, he is questioning the sad interpretations which inevitably lead to the conclusions of the Determinist’s false doctrines. Therefore, I suggest you take your own advice, Icon, and cautiously take note of the unavoidable logical “bottom line” which the Calvinist’s assigns to God’s Holy Nature through their warped definitions of His Love through their followings of false teachers as they twist the Word to maintain their manmade systematic ...“phikosophies”.

Yes, rightly so that Calvinists should cringe, then as seen once again in this debate would resort to duck & jive tactics and make the typical worn out claims that their opponents don’t understand where their position leads while falling back on quotes of their false teaching predecessors as if their stereotypical words, conclusions and reasoning are Holy…sound familiar, eh? Yeah, Icon, I know what Cals mean when they say the Non-Cals don’t understand, they mean they can’t logically support their position so they must resort to their typical “appeal to authority” fallacies. :thumbs:

 

I don't know his motives. I really feel bad for the guy, he's misinformed and oblivious to a lot of truth. Or, he's been faced with truth and doesn't like that truth and has formed his own.

His book and statements are no different than if someone wrote a book about little hundred legged humans that live in the ground and how wrong they are in their beliefs. The little hundred legged humans obviously don't exist, therefore neither does the belief system he's alleged toward them. The same thing is accomplished within his book, his vitriol is against caricatures, beliefs of said caricatures, yet neither of these exist so his attack is against caricatures and straw men.

We see the same vitriol here in this thread. The name calling against Calvinists, James White, then the same is leveled upon those within this forum who are of the same camp. They spread their disdain to all within this the camp. It is like this to them and herein is their reason; 'You're arrogant, so I won, and this proves my theology is correct'. That's their strongest argument to date.

But the problem is really they are dissatisfied with their skim milk theology and possibly aren't aware of it yet so instead of learning it is much easier to attack.

Going back to Dave Hunt, the intriguing thing is that the God to whom he denies Biblical Sovereignty and Sovereign election via His own purpose cannot exist. He believes the God he worships is much different, and in fact in his mind He is much different, but his concept of this doesn't measure up accurately to the God of Scriptures. But then again, Hunt is deceived, deceptive, is misleading in many theological areas and holds to a shallow theological platform.

I was once where Dave Hunt is (sort of but not quite) though I never attacked truth like he has. I was confronted and lead to belief in DoG by the grace of God. I was confronted by it, by God's grace I examined it, found it to be true, and gave Him the glory. Now Scripture has opened up to me in a huge way.

Nevertheless Hunt is in for a shocker concerning the person of God. The Sovereign God we bow to, and describe within our theology is on His throne in all His glory, choosing whom He wills to choose and is totally Sovereign. Hunt and other non-cals haven't realized Him in this way as of yet and they continue to attack truth but they do so in ignorance. But how long can a child of God virulently attack the truth about God unaffected?

- Blessings

 

Ask any person who has fought against DoG and has finally come to see that this is truth, and you will see a person who has grown by leaps and bounds, has great joy, a truthful and Biblical perception of self, has come to understand how truly Sovereign God is, and has become mightier in the Scriptures. The truth will set you free, indeed.

 

Benjamin, I think you might enjoy the following link ( a free web based book)

http://www.xcalvinist.com/

 

White v Hunt

Hunt never said he didn't study CALVINISM, he said that it was the REFORMERS that White referred to that he didn't study much, and this debate was BEFORE Hunt studied more on the Reformers.

But this is based on the fallacy that one has to have a thorough knowledge of the AUTHOR of a belief before he can dissect the BELIEF ITSELF.

If the Watchtower says that "In the beginning..the word was A god", do I really need to study the entire series of "Studies in the Scriptures" by Charles Russell before I can say that their view of John 1:1 is wrong?

Others here including James White himself criticize Hunt for taking only 6 months to study the Reformers. Six months is a lot of time to learn about any subject, and again, the beliefs of Calvinism are plentious, one does not need to study the Reformers thoroughly before being able to understand Calvinism. That is pure egotistical C-R-A-P.

Since Calvinism claims that it IS the gospel, Calvinism holds that a person can not truly understand the gospel until he has done a thorough study of the works of man, instead of a thorough study of the Bible, because even by the admission of all the critics, Hunt did not "understand" Calvinism or THE GOSPEL, unless he studied all of the Reformers.

And what is so ironic, is that other criticize Hunt's knowledge and education, and have attacked mine, when nobody questions James White's Masters and TWO doctorates (ThM and ThD) from an unaccredited ONLINE DIPLOMA MILL that changed their name from Faraston "Seminary" to Columbia because of the bad publicity it received for being a diploma mill.

James White is a good debater [albeit being a good debate doesn't mean being an honest one], but a terrible theologian.

 

Two thousand years passed without a literal Israel on the map, and yet, today, there Israel is;
and it has passed the half-way mark in total number of Jews living on earth (6 million+).
And there Islam is, on the rise and threatening the Western World today, following half a millennium of being "dormant".
And what is Islam's focus? A tiny nation the size of New Jersey, that must be wiped off the map.

"Earth shaking" history in the making... right before our eyes.

Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day?
Shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Isa 66:8

 

Obvious motive...criticize Calvinism to make a buck! :laugh:

 

I think you either misinterpret or mischaracterize. He (the author) is one, although I do not know his complete history, who once counted himself a calvinist, but became convinced otherwise and thus wrote a book. Nothing wrong with "making a buck", although placing your work for free on the web does not seem to suggest a greedy form of monetary motive.

I do not criticize the position of calvinism much, I have a modicum of respect for those who hold to it.

 

Ach

What you and others do is just look to twist what is being said,rather than address the heart of the issue.To have some understanding of who wrote,when,and why can be useful.The focus is still always the word of God.

You cannot begin to refute what James White spoke about,so you are looking to strain at a gnat.....You make it sound like in this supposed six months ...was an eternity and he was able to"digest"it.
To understand theology the Spirit of God must open someones understanding it could be in 6 seconds, six minutes, or six years.
Many times it takes an extended period of time just to take in the verses and what teaching is being suggested.There can be a process of meditating and changing preconceived ideas ,before coming to truth.
You do not seem to grasp this by reading what you post...because of your flawed agenda.

Calvinism can always be said to be the gospel in that each aspect of the teaching explains the work of the Godhead in planning and accomplishing redemption.
This is in line with how Paul spoke of it here;
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The death ,burial,resurrection,......according to the scriptures,
The Calvinist links these historic facts....to the rest of the scriptures.The Covenants of promise....that the scriptures call the "gospel".

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

,

It can be seen in scripture alone.Many other men see it also and have good and helpful imput.We call them teachers.We like to read them so we can understand more of the scriptures.Try it,you might like it.

Hunt did not display a proper understanding of God Himself,much less this teachings.

If you can help James White...go right ahead....Call in live and speak openly,instead of being a cyber rambo .I see what you post...i see what he writes...you are not even close to James White in most any area of teaching and that is just how it is.

You cannot get by us:laugh: much less Dr.White:laugh:
Not even close....not by a mile:wavey:

 

Focusing on what the reformers said is petty, an appeal to authority fallacy, and nothing more than a debate tactic. Hunt constantly tried to steer to scripture alone. White tried to make it about the reformers.

Hunt won the debate hands down.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

The question was in the context of the debate, not in the fallacious context you're placing it in -- that is that White was making them some high authority other than what he meant in context. The contextual authority he was speaking of is their being sought for their understanding of reformed theology.

By the way, I won't stoop to your level to say that you trying to correct someone is 'arrogant' an accusation you level upon all Reformed brothers almost incessantly. And you want to talk about debate tactics? :laugh:

Mitch, you bring yet another anti-cal straw man. Stay in context and you won't go astray in your teaching. And you won't come to baseless and erroneous conclusions like the one you give below:

:wavey:

 

MB

There was no debate as Hunt was not quite up to it on several levels.

Dr.White was kind and patient to this man who lacked much theologically.

This is the excuse off all who are too lazy to really study the issue out.Just call someone a name and ignore the actual substance of the whole discussion.Not one of you detractors can address the issue .

he is calm because he does not grasp the issue...oblivious is more accurate.

James White trying to call DH back to the topic,and verses in question is not "prideful"....the word would be "needful".

DH putting on his track shoes to run away from Jn 6:37-44....does not constitue biblical answers....:BangHead:

Not really......it was a mismatch,

 

When you have nothing else use taunting smilies. Neither White nor anyone on this board has made a clear case as to why knowing what the reformers said instead of just sticking to scripture "was the issue" according to White.

 

Pure arrogance.

 

I concur. Although I have heard more astute apologists of the non-cal flavor, I think Mr. Hunt did a great job.

 

This really is a party-line thread. If you agree with Calvinism you probably sided with White. If you don't then you probably sided with Hunt.

Surprising, huh?

 

What is pure arrogance is your repeated pattern of making snide remarks,then avoiding every theological issue.That is arrogance:thumbs:
I cannot remember a post where you have offered anything positive or scriptural.Try it for a change instead of exhibiting your proud condescending spirit.:wavey::thumbs:

 

It has turned out that way....what i found most disturbing was the questions offered by DH. They were off target and baffling.

 

Excellent observation.

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

A derivative of Occam's Razor.