Unconditional Election And the Invincible Purpose of God

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

One would have hoped that a Christian pastor would have read the book in question before claiming what Mr. Hunt writes about as being in error. Not very objective . . . There is no question that reviews and friends reviews of the text come for the most part from bias people who favor Reformation theology. 'Hearsay evidence' is neither scholarly or objective.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

What does John 1:9 mean to you as a Calvinist. My guess is that many of like mind never have preached on this particular text.

 

[Ray Berrian]

tnelson,

You made a statement that Mr. Hunt made about being 'conformed to the image of the Son. What book and page does this statement come from; in other words, document your point. Otherwise, we might think that this is 'hearsay evidence.

If you believe in eternal security how then can a backslider be saved who is out of fellowship with the Lord? I believe in eternal security but don't think that a saved, backslider is in perfect conformity with the holiness of our Savior. This is a sincere question, my brother.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
One would have hoped that a Christian pastor would have read the book in question before claiming what Mr. Hunt writes about as being in error. Not very objective . . . There is no question that reviews and friends reviews of the text come for the most part from bias people who favor Reformation theology. 'Hearsay evidence' is neither scholarly or objective.

I have seen both the critiques and the rebuttals by White, Hunt, and others. I don't need to read the book to see what Hunt said in his own defense. The reviews come from both sides. Hunt is simply wrong and has been documented to be so in numerous areas. He was shown to be guilt of the same type of creative quoting as Riplinger in her infamous book.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
What does John 1:9 mean to you as a Calvinist. My guess is that many of like mind never have preached on this particular text.

We have had this discussion before. It is referring essentially to the image of God in man, top common grace. It is not referring to prevenient grace.

[ January 06, 2003, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I have seen both the critiques and the rebuttals by White, Hunt, and others. I don't need to read the book to see what Hunt said in his own defense. The reviews come from both sides. Hunt is simply wrong and has been documented to be so in numerous areas. He was shown to be guilt of the same type of creative quoting as Riplinger in her infamous book.[/QB]

I wonder what it would say of me if I decided for or against the Bible based upon others critiques and rebuttals of it, even if the reviews did come from both sides. Even if both sides provided documentation.

I've read the book, and although I didn't agree with everything found in it, there is much to be appreciated. I would encourage you to at least try to read it for yourself - then you could speak from having at least experienced it instead of reciting what others say about it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
I wonder what it would say of me if I decided for or against the Bible based upon others critiques and rebuttals of it, even if the reviews did come from both sides. Even if both sides provided documentation.

The Bible is the word of God. Hunt's book is not.

It is a very wise and common practice not to read everything available. There is not that much time and there too much available. Many have recommended this approach and all would be wise to take it. If Hunt's book was recommended by reputable sources, I would read it. There has not been one reputable source that recommends it. The reviews and rebuttals have been shown the facts about the book.

Do you think that my reading the book would change the nature of it? Will my reading correct the misstatements and misrepresentations? I don't think so. I don't have that much power.

 

[Jacob]

I can relate to Scott's post. I heard all the negative's about Hunt's book but decided to buy and read it myself. Although I was a little disapointed at the depth of his attempts to refute the Calvinist proof texts I did benefit from the book. It was very good at detailing the history, philosophical arguments against, and natural implications of Calvinism.

I think one of the main reasons this book has upset Calvinists so much is that it presents Calvinism in a very raw fashion while genuinely trying to represent their view accurately.

I've read Chosen but Free, What Love is This and have just started Potter's Freedom.

Jacob.

[ January 06, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Jacob ]

 

[Jacob]

No offense Pastor Larry but slamming a book without reading it is a big No No.

Jacob.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Jacob:
No offense Pastor Larry but slamming a book without reading it is a big No No.

Jacob.

Who appointed you to set the rules? Are you saying that what virtually every reputable scholar and pastor has said about Hunt's book is wrong? As I have said, there is not yet one credible source who has recommended this book. I have read the reviews with lengthy quotations. I have read Hunt's attempt to rebut these views. I have talked personally to men who have written reviews. I have no fear that were I to read the book, their citations and critiques would be borne our. If I were to read the book, my opinions would probably be stronger. As it is, I have seen enough from enough different and unconnected people to know that Hunt's work is poorly done.

Learn this in life. You do not have read every piece of junk that someone publishes. You don't even have to read all the goos stuff. Find some reputable readers and read their critiques. If you are going to quote a work, make sure you read enough to know that you are quoting it accurately and in context. Do not waste your time reading everything. Having said that, if someone wants to send me a copy fo the book, I will be glad to read it . I simply will not waste my own money on it.

The truth about Hunt is that he wrote a book he was not qualified to write, rejected the kind advice of others not to write it, miserably failed, and now is reaping just criticism that comes from those who know what Hunt is talking about and have recognized that Hunt does not know what he is talking about. Hunt has written some helpful things. This is not one of them and the quicker that people realize this, the better off they will be.

Read the title article at this link for additional evidence. The Great Calvinistic Conspiracy

[ January 06, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Having an open mind is a sign that a person doesn't think he knows it all. It is what you don't know that can hurt you and keep you in spiritual myopia.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

Your biggest mistake is your presupposition that ALL reputable scholars and pastors come out of the Calvinistic persuasion of theology. While there is much correct in their views one has to be careful with some of their interpretations.

Dr. Merrill C. Tenney and Harry Bollback, Co-founder with evangelist Jack Wyrtzen of Word of Life International have done more for the Lord and have a better understanding of the Word, in my opinion, than some of the error coming out of books written by Dr. R.C. Sproul, Mr. Harold Camping, Dr. Van Til, J.I. Packer and other quasi-theologians.

Respectfully,

Ray

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Your biggest mistake is your presupposition that ALL reputable scholars and pastors come out of the Calvinistic persuasion of theology. While there is much correct in their views one has to be careful with some of their interpretations.

Not my presupposition at all. That was not my use of reputable scholars.

Dr. Merrill C. Tenney and Harry Bollback, Co-founder with evangelist Jack Wyrtzen of Word of Life International have done more for the Lord and have a better understanding of the Word, in my opinion, than some of the error coming out of books written by Dr. R.C. Sproul, Mr. Harold Camping, Dr. Van Til, J.I. Packer and other quasi-theologians.

Bollback I don't know. Tenney has some very helpful things. I have some of them. Camping is a heretic. He is so marginalized that most people have no clue who he is. Packer, Van Til (assuming you are talking of Cornelius, the apologist), and Sproul so far surpass the usefulness of Hunt that they can hardly be mentioned in the same subject. The thing that sets these men apart is their research. One telling feature of Hunt's book is his lack of research. Just months before publishing this book he admitted publicly that he had not read any of the reformers. Then he publishes a book to refute them when there is no way he could have had time to read them and understand the issues. It is shoddy research and has been exposed.

 

[Jacob]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Who appointed you to set the rules?

Nobody appointed me. It's just my personal opinion. Isn't that what these forums are all about? I meant no offense.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The truth about Hunt is that he wrote a book he was not qualified to write

Who is qualified? Calvinists only?

Prior to reading the book I read all the reviews too. But I really felt I needed to read the complete work for myself to get the complete tone of it. I also noticed that pretty much all the reviews were written by strict Calvinists who love to "eat arminians for breakfast". In reading the book I got a completely different tone about Hunt than I got from just reading the reviews. He really cares about presenting Calvinism fairly and respects the person even though he disagrees with their theology. He also raised some important points which either don't come up in the reviews or are not fully presented.

Larry, I suggest you read it. As for not wanting to pay for the book that's sad. You're not supporting Islam or some cult. Dave Hunt/Berean Call is a brother in the Lord. I often find that Calvinists CANNOT treat this issue as secondary. Elevating secondary issues to the level of primary issues is dangerous - don't treat him as a cult.

Jacob.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Jacob:
Nobody appointed me. It's just my personal opinion. Isn't that what these forums are all about? I meant no offense.

That's fine. It gave the opportunity to point out that it is fine to comment on books so long as your sources are accurate. It is not necessary to read everything. In fact, it is impossible.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Who is qualified? Calvinists only?

No. People who know the subject. Hunt doesn't.

He really cares about presenting Calvinism fairly and respects the person even though he disagrees with their theology.

Then why did he blatantly misrepresent someone like Spurgeon, and cite from Spurgeon on the very page that refutes Hunt's understanding of Spurgeon? That was not fair treatment. I have been told it was not charitable.

Larry, I suggest you read it. As for not wanting to pay for the book that's sad. You're not supporting Islam or some cult.

I am not worried about supporting Islam or some cult. I am not questioning Hunt's salvation. I have no idea. I am simply committed to buying books that are useful in my library. Hunt's book is not.

As for secondary, I am not sure that it is secondary. We are talking about some very basic matters of soteriology and Ray and some others have come very close to denying the biblical teaching on it. They work their way around by finely nuancing their words but I scarcely think it is sufficient. I am not running them out of Christianity. But I think a great deal more care needs to be exercised in reckoning with the text of Scripture. Forget about Calvin; talk about Scripture. That is what we need.

 

[Jacob]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I have been told it was not charitable...

Again, another reason why you should read the book instead of listening to others. I believe the comment you're referring to (or James White is referring to) is found on page 19...It's only 3 lines, introducing a Spurgeon quote and is not in the least bit uncharitable.

Jacob.

 

[Pastor Larry]

These comments have been made by a number of people other than James White. In fact, I don't think I knew that White said that until today. Perhaps I had missed it somewhere. I actually heard that from a number of other sources. But as I say, my reading the book will not change the nature of the writing.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
But as I say, my reading the book will not change the nature of the writing.[/QB]

No, but reading the book may change your perception of the writing. You can check it out from a local library - I got it through an interlibrary loan. It's worth the telephone call and the two or three hours it takes to read it, if only to see what "the other side" says.

 

[TheTravelingMinstrel]

Ok, i'm not going to waste my time to read a book on "why homosexuality is a normal lifestyle" why? because I know it's garbage and I don't need to waste the time God has given me to be a steward of on reading a junky book.

If he hears from scholars that he trusts and agrees with and saying that he's totally off base and why, then why would he go spending his valuable time to read it.

Personally, i'm not going to waste my time to read a long arminist book preaching about man's right to choose.

WHO ARE YOU, OH MAN, TO ANSWER BACK TO GOD.

 

[tnelson]

Ray Berrian
I did not read it from a book I heard it with my ears and you can to at htt://www.straitgate.com/jw121402.ram

Also Ray, I have read Dave's book "What Love is This" and he does not have a clue about reformed doctrine. Also I read his new letter. Also God used Dave to bring me to an understanding of Gods Sovereign Grace. This may sound strange to some but nothing is impossible with God.

by His Grace i see
mike