Hunt vs White

[preacher4truth]

Isn't it very interesting that the Non-cals on this thread have spent many posts maligning the calvinistic thinkers, pulling down the character of calvanistic thinkers, and other degradations, and now the claim to fame that they parade into this thread is that the Cal's don't rely upon Scripture - alone as their final authority!

However, I have not seen (though admittedly may have missed) ONE post by the non-cal side that has included Scriptures!

Folks, if you want to support a view, fine. But at least be kind enough to demonstrate you have some authority to back your opinions that rests outside of your own petty hobby horse rants.

For instance: If Hunt is correct than post Scriptures that would support that view. If White is correct post Scriptures that would support that view.

All the name calling and bitter labels have done nothing to enhance either side in this thread.

Not even a moderators post(s) contain anything of real value.

Jesus said that those who do not believe are "condemned already."

Did such a person miss the opportunity to not be condemned?

Or, were they born with a fallen nature as the Scriptures do teach that "ALL have sinned."

Jesus said that "No man comes to me unless the father who sent me draws him."

Does "free will / choice" enter anywhere in that verse?

What if the father doesn't draw a person?

Can they come of their own free will / choice anyway?

The Scriptures don't seem to support that ability or it would conflict with the statement that Jesus made.

So, folks, get away from personal snipping and if you are truly Godly, PROVE your thoughts by Scripture - alone!

The non-cals claim the cals don't rest upon Scripture alone, but the non-cals have fallen from the kettle into the fire on this thread - and so have the cals.

Exactly. But they will never see this nor will they accept these facts.

Other than this I disagree with your conclusion on the Calvinists. Your conclusion is a baseless final statement.

- Blessings

 

[agedman]

Exactly. But they will never see this nor will they accept these facts.

Other than this I disagree with your conclusion on the Calvinists. Your conclusion is a baseless final statement.

- Blessings

You don't think I was accurate to both sides in this thread?

 

[Rippon]

There was not TULIP at the time of Calvin, and it is doubtful that he himself believed in it.

Wrong DHK. Calvin would have endorsed the conclusions of the Synod of Dort.

 

[preacher4truth]

You don't think I was accurate to both sides in this thread?

Not at all. The Calvinists here have offered objective posts and you've included them in your post as being in error. You've offered no basis for your conclusion upon them. You're reaching for unity of error when frankly it isn't there.

- Blessings

 

[agedman]

Not at all. The Calvinists here have offered objective posts and you've included them in your post as being in error. You've offered no basis for your conclusion upon them. You're reaching for unity of error when frankly it isn't there.

- Blessings

I am stating that if either side is going to defend Hunt or White, then they need to incorporate the use of Scriptures.

Show how Hunt's or White's use of Scriptures were correct or incorrect by not only restating what was said, but show other supporting Scriptures to validate the truth or untruth.

However, to could it be that the non-cal have no real authoritative Scripture to rest their view?

I used a few quotes that would support a cal view, can the non-cal demonstrate that what I stated is faulty by appropriate use of Scriptures?

 

[preacher4truth]

I am stating that if either side is going to defend Hunt or White, then they need to incorporate the use of Scriptures.

Show how Hunt's or White's use of Scriptures were correct or incorrect by not only restating what was said, but show other supporting Scriptures to validate the truth or untruth.

However, to could it be that the non-cal have no real authoritative Scripture to rest their view?

I used a few quotes that would support a cal view, can the non-cal demonstrate that what I stated is faulty by appropriate use of Scriptures?

My point was you have used no conclusive evidence on your accusations towards Calvinists in this thread. Thus far it has all been arbitrary.

The usage of Scripture to defend either side is not the point. The point is proving either of them wrong in their usage of Scripture.

Beyond this, DH has failed to prove his point and has failed miserably. You see, the burden of proof lay upon him, which is the objective of the debate, and he, as he has stated, has no true knowledge of the Reformed position on Calvinism. That said, he only brings an caricature of calvinism and straw man arguments in addition to this.

For Hunts or White's failures on their usages of Scripture, you'll have to show them yourself as you've condemned both sides, thus the burden to prove such lay upon you. You brought this into the argument, don't turn on others to answer your own baseless conclusions, instead perhaps answer them yourself? You've condemned the Calvinists in this thread as you have the non. Prove all of these accusations and don't pass the buck onto me or anyone else to prove them.

However, to could it be that the non-cal have no real authoritative Scripture to rest their view?

Yes. Exactly my point and they do not. But you've leveled the same upon Calvinists in this thread and I patiently await your proof. Otherwise you're still reaching for unity of error which frankly is not there.

- Blessings

 

[agedman]

... edited for space...
My point was you have used no conclusive evidence on your accusations towards Calvinists in this thread. Thus far it has all been arbitrary.

I submit that the thread, itself, contains the "conclusive evidence" and supports the accusation I made toward both sides.

That accusation is that neither side had used any Scriptures to support their views, but had resorted to labels and demeaning statements that do not edify.

The accusation is not arbitrary, but is evidenced by the thread, itself.

Can you actually find a post in which the Cal side has used Scriptures to defend White's views in this thread or refute Hunts?

Can the non - cal actually find a post in which the non-cal side has used Scriptures to defend Hunt's views in this thread or refute White's?

I never particularly "claimed a side" in the thread but demonstrated a few verses that did support a side as an example in hopes that the thread posters would move the discussion along to something of real substance.

 

[Benjamin]

Isn't it very interesting that the Non-cals on this thread have spent many posts maligning the calvinistic thinkers, pulling down the character of calvanistic thinkers, and other degradations, and now the claim to fame that they parade into this thread is that the Cal's don't rely upon Scripture - alone as their final authority!

However, I have not seen (though admittedly may have missed) ONE post by the non-cal side that has included Scriptures!

Folks, if you want to support a view, fine. But at least be kind enough to demonstrate you have some authority to back your opinions that rests outside of your own petty hobby horse rants.

For instance: If Hunt is correct than post Scriptures that would support that view. If White is correct post Scriptures that would support that view.

All the name calling and bitter labels have done nothing to enhance either side in this thread.

Not even a moderators post(s) contain anything of real value.

Jesus said that those who do not believe are "condemned already."

Did such a person miss the opportunity to not be condemned?

Or, were they born with a fallen nature as the Scriptures do teach that "ALL have sinned."

Jesus said that "No man comes to me unless the father who sent me draws him."

Does "free will / choice" enter anywhere in that verse?

What if the father doesn't draw a person?

Can they come of their own free will / choice anyway?

The Scriptures don't seem to support that ability or it would conflict with the statement that Jesus made.

So, folks, get away from personal snipping and if you are truly Godly, PROVE your thoughts by Scripture - alone!

The non-cals claim the cals don't rest upon Scripture alone, but the non-cals have fallen from the kettle into the fire on this thread - and so have the cals.

You seem to want to redirect this topic and go into the typical unorganized never-ending scriptural food-fights which generally lack any resolve on this board due to the very tactics being discussed in this thread and/or want settle the C&A disagreements through some scriptural food-fights on these issues right here and now??? Above you try to redirect the topic into arguments over predestination, the origin of sin, irresistible grace – what have you – this all amounts to a smokescreen toward the topic at hand. The topic of this thread is about the “debate methods” used in Hunt VS White debate. The fact that the fallacies being used by White in that debate are stereotypical of the Calvinist’ arguments merely make good examples of the common smokescreens used by them to avoid to getting down to drawing out the truth in the claims and issues at hand. In this instance the claim that Hunt doesn’t understand the Calvinist system and the issues and debate tactics behind that claim - Know what I mean?

Not even a moderators post(s) contain anything of real value.

If all you value is off topic never-ending scriptural food fights, fine, but personally I, and I'm sure many others are not interested in going into those circular arguments during the discussions of this topic...thanks.

 

[preacher4truth]

I submit that the thread, itself, contains the "conclusive evidence" and supports the accusation I made toward both sides.

That accusation is that neither side had used any Scriptures to support their views, but had resorted to labels and demeaning statements that do not edify.

OK. Prove your above statements on both sides with quotes. The burden of proof lay upon you to do so.

You've completely dismissed my prior response, thus your editing out of which I said this:

The usage of Scripture to defend either side is not the point. The point is proving either of them wrong in their usage of Scripture.

Prove your alleged demeaning statements from both sides within the context of this thread. The Calvinist response here have been objective and expose the objectives of non-Calvinist up to this point. Based on this, respectfully I don't believe your accusations can stand as they are baseless.

Again, you're still attempting to reach for unity of error on both sides and again frankly it is not there though I appreciate your attempt for such unity, but it is unfounded.

All you've said up to this point is arbitrary. Offer solid proof with quotes to support your accusations please.

- Blessings

 

[agedman]

Ok, now I have both sides attention.

Don't I feel popular!

I have placed the problem of the thread as I have seen it.

Because both sides are willing to continue with pointless discussion couched in "debate tactics" and which side is more honorable, I will respectfully withdraw from the thread.

Folks, let's just not get so zealous in debate tactics and honorable -ness that the Holy Spirit is grieved by what you post.

Always remember that many eyes look at the BB who never register and who might stumble over the words used on a thread like this.

 

[DHK]

Wrong DHK. Calvin would have endorsed the conclusions of the Synod of Dort.

Pure conjecture. Besides you don't seem to understand English just like Calvin didn't understand English, which was the main focus of my post. He spoke and wrote in FRENCH.

Total depravity is not a French phrase and would not start with T.
"depravation totalie"
"election inconditionnelle"
"grace irresistible"
"expiation limitee"
"La perseverance des saints"

DEGEL = TULIP For Calvin there was no TULIP, even if he believed the same points. And that is doubtful.
However, the neo-Calvinistic position is not "total depravity," it is "total inability," a rather new doctrine, not the orthodox doctrine of the depravity of man that has been held throughout the ages. This modern "Reformed" position is almost a new religion, at least for Baptists.

 

[DHK]

This is the hugest straw man I've seen to date on the BB. The final appeal of Cals/Reformed/DoG is sola scriptura, and such is historically the position of all Calvinists. What a caricature you've drawn.

Calvinists here on BB allude to Scripture continuously and solely as their foundation of doctrine. What you are errantly stating is that instead of this they are appealing to Reformers, ECF &c to prove their theology and have made these, not Scripture their foundation. That is total nonsense. Nothing is further from the truth and your accusations are far removed from what is seen here on BB.

That said, do you care to give proof to your straw man accusations that Calvinists use the things you mention as their 'final appeal'?

First, it is not a strawman because I have spoken truthfully.
Second, I am not going to waste my time doing a search, but I will give you one example.

There is a poster here who refuses to debate me because "I am ignorant, and refuse to be taught."
He comes to that conclusion because I refuse to read the links to his confessions, creeds, etc. IOW, he won't debate with Scripture. His creeds and confessions are his authority seemingly, not the Bible, or so it seems.

That is one good example.
I am not going to debate a creed or a confession.

 

[DrJamesAch]

You seem to want to redirect this topic and go into the typical unorganized never-ending scriptural food-fights which generally lack any resolve on this board due to the very tactics being discussed in this thread and/or want settle the C&A disagreements through some scriptural food-fights on these issues right here and now??? Above you try to redirect the topic into arguments over predestination, the origin of sin, irresistible grace – what have you – this all amounts to a smokescreen toward the topic at hand. The topic of this thread is about the “debate methods” used in Hunt VS White debate. The fact that the fallacies being used by White in that debate are stereotypical of the Calvinist’ arguments merely make good examples of the common smokescreens used by them to avoid to getting down to drawing out the truth in the claims and issues at hand. In this instance the claim that Hunt doesn’t understand the Calvinist system and the issues and debate tactics behind that claim - Know what I mean?



If all you value is off topic never-ending scriptural food fights, fine, but personally I, and I'm sure many others are not interested in going into those circular arguments during the discussions of this topic...thanks.

Just a good example to show the smoke and mirrors tactics of Calvinists, there's a monkey wrench to throw at them and watch the smoke burrow over the land of Calvinism, and it is simply to ask them this: WHAT IS CALVINISM? In defining it, you will watch the tide move from John Calvin, to the Reformers, to the Creeds, a few proof texts thrown in the mix, and then defended by a creedal statement.

Calvinists deliberately obfuscate even their own definitions of Calvinism because half of their tactics are attempting to convince the opposition that they don't understand Calvinism, and if a Calvinist can avoid getting pinned down to a definition of Calvinism that can be compared to the Bible, they will be at a loss because Calvinism is a philosophical system, not a Biblical one.

 

[DrJamesAch]

First, it is not a strawman because I have spoken truthfully.
Second, I am not going to waste my time doing a search, but I will give you one example.

There is a poster here who refuses to debate me because "I am ignorant, and refuse to be taught."
He comes to that conclusion because I refuse to read the links to his confessions, creeds, etc. IOW, he won't debate with Scripture. His creeds and confessions are his authority seemingly, not the Bible, or so it seems.

That is one good example.
I am not going to debate a creed or a confession.

And I know exactly who you are talking about. Calvinists expect others to read every inch of Reformer publications when they themselves can't even agree on what Calvinism is or the veracity of accusations about John Calvin himself.

There is just as much out there AGAINST Calvinism, if not more so, then there is for it. How much time would a Calvinist spend on reading the opposition? Even in this thread, they were all willing to read the debate with James White, but none of them commented hardly at all to the video that was posted that contained the entire lecture Hunt gave on "What Love Is This".

Calvinists refuse to accept the possibility that they could be wrong. But yet Calvin got baptism wrong-he sprinkled babies. Calvin got the millennium wrong and wouldn't touch the book of Revelation with a 10 foot pole (ditto for Luther). Since prophecy covers 2/3 of the Bible, how can anyone claim that a person so far off of what God considered a very important element of Scripture (" for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" Rev 19:10) and then claim God used this man (and Augustine) to clarify the truth of the gospel that no fundamental church held to for 1500 years before Calvin showed up? Such is the exact same mentality that the Watchtower, Catholics, and other CULTS use.

 

[preacher4truth]

First, it is not a strawman because I have spoken truthfully.
Second, I am not going to waste my time doing a search, but I will give you one example.

There is a poster here who refuses to debate me because "I am ignorant, and refuse to be taught."
He comes to that conclusion because I refuse to read the links to his confessions, creeds, etc. IOW, he won't debate with Scripture. His creeds and confessions are his authority seemingly, not the Bible, or so it seems.

That is one good example.
I am not going to debate a creed or a confession.

Yeah, sure. Where's your proof? You've offered nothing but an unsubstantiated straw man argument. Your alleged 'evidence' fails. One who has offered creeds or whatever as a point has NEVER used these as a FINAL authority which is your accusation.

Go garner solid proof Calvinists use your alleged sources as their 'final authority' which implies being above even Scripture. You've failed in your endeavor up to this point.

There are several admins here who are Calvinists as well. Prove they do the same in your broad brush accusation against Calvinists. Prove they as well accept anything other than Scripture as their final authority. You're on an island and have brought upon yourself a tsunami of fallacy.

 

[Rippon]

Pure conjecture.

Not at all. Calvin would certainly have been in accord with the Canons of Dort (which were not originally written in English,but Dutch --sice you are hung up on the non-English ability of Calvin).

if he believed the same points. And that is doubtful.

Since when did you become a Calvin expert? Haven't you prided yourself in that you have not read his works?

the neo-Calvinistic position

Only in your mind.

modern "Reformed" position is almost a new religion, at least for Baptists.

Dreaming,all you do is dream. Spurgeon believed in total depravity (i.e.pervasive corruption) and total spiritual inability. Was he a neo-Calvinist? :laugh:

 

[DHK]

Yeah, sure. Where's your proof? You've offered nothing but an unsubstantiated straw man argument. Your alleged 'evidence' fails. One who has offered creeds or whatever as a point has NEVER used these as a FINAL authority which is your accusation.

Go garner solid proof Calvinists use your alleged sources as their 'final authority' which implies being above even Scripture. You've failed in your endeavor up to this point.

There are several admins here who are Calvinists as well. Prove they do the same in your broad brush accusation against Calvinists. Prove they as well accept anything other than Scripture as their final authority. You're on an island and have brought upon yourself a tsunami of fallacy.

This is an appeal to a creed, not to Scripture. The poster is saying that the Creed is Scriptural, but the appeal is to the Creed itself, not the Scripture. Read carefully:

This post is ignorant and shows why you make no progress and repeat error after error.
it is excessive hubris on your part to say that because reformed believers do not despise scholarship and gifts given to the church that somehow you and your private interpretations trump all manner of Christians before you came along.
Why I say it is ignorant is all the confessions and catechisms exalt scripture first and primarily.They are formed to give protection for the kind of error ,you and others want to post.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1992551&postcount=38

This type of appeal is made many times over in many different threads.
They are easy to find.

 

[Herald]

Excellent observation.

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

A derivative of Occam's Razor.

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

If we break the Calvinism threads down to their lowest common denominator it is always party line. No one comes away from these threads having experienced an epiphany that rocks their theological paradigm. That is because no one really is offering an honest inquiry.

 

[preacher4truth]

Pure conjecture. Besides you don't seem to understand English just like Calvin didn't understand English, which was the main focus of my post. He spoke and wrote in FRENCH.

Total depravity is not a French phrase and would not start with T.
"depravation totalie"
"election inconditionnelle"
"grace irresistible"
"expiation limitee"
"La perseverance des saints"

DEGEL = TULIP For Calvin there was no TULIP, even if he believed the same points. And that is doubtful.
However, the neo-Calvinistic position is not "total depravity," it is "total inability," a rather new doctrine, not the orthodox doctrine of the depravity of man that has been held throughout the ages. This modern "Reformed" position is almost a new religion, at least for Baptists.

With any due respect, your argument is rather feeble.

A simple interpretation of these French phrases would translate quite simply into TULIP in the English vernacular. Your argument fails. You have nothing to stand upon in your allegations of TULIP.

Calvin was French thus TULIP isn't true because TULIP is an English acronym? Any person can see at face value these French phrases fitting naturally into TULIP.

'depravation totalie'? :laugh::wavey:

Total Depravation perhaps? Continue this rudimentary process with the balance of your French phrases. The end result is that TULIP is clearly seen.

Yours is an invalid allegation and falls well short of being anywhere near a plausible argument.

 

[DHK]

Not at all. Calvin would certainly have been in accord with the Canons of Dort (which were not originally written in English,but Dutch --sice you are hung up on the non-English ability of Calvin). {/quote]
You won't find TULIP in Dutch either. :laugh:

Since when did you become a Calvin expert? Haven't you prided yourself in that you have not read his works?

He is one of many commentators on a software program I have, one that I can easily resort to at anytime, if I so desire. So, I yes, I do look at his commentary on the Bible every so often.

Only in your mind.

This "neo-Calvinistic" position is not the traditional Calvinistic position, and if you are fair and objective about the current state of affairs among Calvinist you will have to admit that they are a divided group and as diverse as the many groups of Baptists that exist. More and more sects of Calvinists are forming every day. I know of one who left a non-Cal IFB to go to a Reformed Baptist, and then left to join a Presbyterian church because that was the logical end of Calvinism.

Dreaming,all you do is dream. Spurgeon believed in total depravity (i.e.pervasive corruption) and total spiritual inability. Was he a neo-Calvinist? :laugh:

Spurgeon seemed to be a conflicted person.
He would preach reformed one day, and whosoever or free-will the next.
Both sides claim him.