Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Unlike you I have to yeild to my job or I soon would be on the welfare rolls. My life doesn't revolve around this debate. It obvious to me you posted with out looking.
The accusations are documented. They can be clearly seen to be true, and therefore, demonstrate that you are wrong.
Incorrect. I don’t care whether he opposes Calvinism or not. People who oppose Calvinism have pointed out that Hunt wrote a horrible book with misrepresentations, false statements, and bad argumentation. In other words, people who disagree with me about Calvinism agree with me about Hunt. You should as well.
This is not a mere matter of making a few mistakes. These problems were well seen in advance. He had no reason to not know. He claims to have researched this. This would not pass a high school research classl.
This is simply a statement of ignorance or willful dishonesty. The “mistakes” have been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever.
Typically bad argumentation. The truth of history depends on history. What you get in a book is an interpretation of the truth of history. But that’s irrelevant anyway.
Again, a repeated and fundamental mistake. Calvinism is not about following Calvin. Why do you keep saying that?
No kidding … I have been saying this for a very long time. It is exactly what Calvinism teaches.
This is totally irrelevant to the point at hand. Hunt claims that Douty was listing more than 70 leaders who opposed Calvinism. Douty did no such thing. He listed 70 leaders who advocates of general redemption. Those things are very different claims, which you should know by know. Secondly, Hunt’s claim regarding Douty means that Calvin and Augustine were opposed to the thing that Hunt said they were for. In other words, Hunt’s citation of Douty leads to a contradiction in Hunt’s own writing.
You don’t to have to be impressed … but this gives clear evidence that Hunt was not accurate in his book. And it gives clear evidence that shows you didn’t tell the truth when you said no Calvinist has shown these errors. It has been shown.
According to what Spurgeon said at the time this would be true.
Bologna! No such conversation or quotes in my copy a first edition. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you really just not get it, Mike? What in the world. Follow with me here: Hunt cites Calvin as affirming an unlimited atonement. As proof, on p. 253 he attributes it to Strong’s Systematic Theology p. 260 and says, “For proof that this is an authentic quotation, see Vance, op cit., 467-68.” Follow me so far? Hunt quotes Calvin out of Strong and says that Vance verifies that this is an authentic quotation.
Acts 13:48 obviously. I made a clerical error of memory. Hunt’s are not in that category, as you should know.
My goodness Larry I still disagree with you. You are simply mistaken. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you are mistaken. Whatever you think about Calvinism, Hunt’s book is bad. The proof has been shown.
He has, and it wasn’t through Hunt’s book. Mike, this is such an easy discussion it is remarkable. If you defend Hunt's book, you have no credibility whatsoever. This is obviously a very poorly researched, poorly argued, and poorly written book. There is no doubt about that.
Unlike me? You really want to start comparing schedules of work? I don't think you want to go down that route Mike. My life doesns't revolve around this debate. In fact, I rarely post because it has become so silly and so repetitive. I got involved on this thread because of the topic. It was an easy thread that take very little time.
You are clearly mistaken ... yet again.
You have verified the article by reading the book? </font>[/QUOTE]For the record, I have read the book and can testify that the articles showing the documentation problems in Hunts book is legitimate. Apparently, though, first-hand testimony doesn't count. Guess you'll have to pick up the book for yourself.
Let me just say Mike that you have no idea what you're talking about. I am the webmaster of www.spurgeon.us ...I don't claim to be an expert, but it's fairly safe to say I know more about Spurgeon than just about anyone on this board. Our site has nearly 5,000 topically arranged documented quotes by the Prince of Preachers. He was not giving credance to Unlimited Atonement in this statement or context. Spurgeon spoke more in favor of Limited Atonement than just about any preacher ever has. On the inageraul service at the Met, Spurgeon had 5 preacher friends of his come in and preach a sermon on each of the 5 points of Calvinism. He then stood up and presented arguments in favor of all 5 himself. If you actually take the time to read 'A defense of Calvinism' (The sermon that quote was pulled from) your stomach will probably boil within your body as you realize how foolish your position is.
Reading bad theology doesn't make me furious. I can listen to Catholic radio, read a New World Translation, and talk to a Muslim any day without my blood pressure raising a beat. Tearing scripture to shreds and throwing it into the fire is what makes me furious and that is what Hunt has done in his sham of a book.
We aren't fighting scripture, but a particular man-centered interpretation of it.
Calvinism isn't a denomination. Your ignorance is peeking through!
Actually I see it as God is sitting on top of satan and NOTHING is allowed unless God approves of it.
Do you somehow think God NEEDS Satan? As if God was incomplete w/o the devil? Your theology needs a tourniquette! It's on the edge!
Very good. you can partially quote verses. Now reread the verse and leave in the word 'usward.'
Sure. God's book/Hunt's book.
Bad argumentation; You assume that "honest look" requires your outcome. That assumes your conclusion. It doesn't work. My mind is made up because of my study of Scripture. I have seen nothing here to dissuade me from what Scripture has convinced me of. If that makes me "closed minded" then so be it. You have yet to marshall one solid argument against what I believe, and conversely, I have shown from Scripture the clear teaching. You disagree with me and that is fine. But whatever side of the theological argument you are on, the truth is that Hunt's book is bad. Do you really want the kind of weak argumentation, misrepresentation, and distortion that Hunt uses to support your side? I wouldn't want that for me. I cringe when I see JohnP posting in support of what I believe. I don't want that kind of argumentation on my side.
I have read parts of it. One hardly needs to read it all to see the problems. One should not waste their time reading inferior material.
I have never considered White a spokemen. I haven't even read what he says about this. My doctrine is from Scripture, not from White or anyone else. And BTW, using "clowns" to describe someone hardly strengthens your argument. Good arguments are based on facts, not inflammatory langauge. Please resist that if you are going to participate here.
I haven't seen anyone claim this, but I don't get around that much. If a Calvinst claims an arminian isn't saved because he is arminian, then he's wrong. Period. Some arminians aren't saved, just like some Calvinists aren't.
I am sure some have lied, and I am sure some arminians have lied. But again, we are not talking about personal tactics of debate, but rather the substance of the issues.
This I have never seen so I can't comment. I have yet to see anyone "thump" Calvinism in any sense.
No it doesn't. It breeds humility because we know that we have no reason to be chosen, just as you, if you are saved, had no reason to be chosen. In the arminian view, you are chosen because you were smart enough to choose, and that brings pride.
This is pure nonsense and has been refuted many many times. You can certainly disagree without stooping to this.
And this exegesis has been shown to be inadequate. It would not pass any Bible college class.
As has been documented, much of his documentation is based on distortion. FOr instance, his comments about AT Robertson on ACts 13:46 were shown to be fraudulent. His "exegesis" of John 6 was shown to be inadequate. This is clearly documented, and you can see if for yourself.
You say the right thing here, but then you deny it by your belief.
Irrelevant since no one is talking about a denomination.
I think we are the ones who do remember this. It is you who forget sometimes. You have emasculated Satan in your effort to restore humanity to a place of neutrality the Bible doesn't teach.
This is a pure lie, Ray. How many times do you have to be told that this isn't what we believe? Do you really think you get to make stuff up? Please, carry on this conversation like a Christian gentleman. Do not make beliefs up becuse you think they are easy to refute.
Exactly. We believe this.
Any and all of whom? You see part of exegesis is identifying antecedents of pronouns. You have so far not really been willing to dig deep into Scripture. I hope that will change.
That is what we Calvinists have been saying all along.
First, I was not attempting scholarship. This is an informal debate. Second, secondary sources are acceptable in some venues, this being one of them. Third, the article does not talk about someone's opinion of the book, although his opinion is clear. The article documents facts, not opinions. You can,if you are interested, get the book and the sources cited in the book, and document for yourself that the article is correct. I can't help but notice you are not really interested in discussing the substance of the book, but rather the side issue of the article. Why? Isn't that telling? Why are you guys scared to talk about the book itself.
I did answer this question. I said I have read part of the book. I have read numerous reviews of the book. I have talked to people who have read the whole thing. So yes, I did answer your question.
First, I was not attempting scholarship. This is an informal debate. Second, secondary sources are acceptable in some venues, this being one of them. Third, the article does not talk about someone's opinion of the book, although his opinion is clear. The article documents facts, not opinions. You can,if you are interested, get the book and the sources cited in the book, and document for yourself that the article is correct. I can't help but notice you are not really interested in discussing the substance of the book, but rather the side issue of the article. Why? Isn't that telling? Why are you guys scared to talk about the book itself.
As I have said, I have read parts of the book. I have seen the same charges Hunt made made in other places and seen the refutations of them there. Most of what Hunt said was recycled tripe from previous works that had already been refuted. Remember, people who agreed with Hunt on the issue itself told Hunt not to publish this book because it was a very poorly done book. In addition, there is the credibility of the author of the article.
Well, you can verify whether this author is fair in his criticism for yourself. Hunt's book is available online here.
Anyone reading the actual quote by Carson can see that Hunt misrepresents it in his lead in to it. Carson is not "drawing the line" at the doctrine of limited atonement. He's explaining why a particular label for that doctrine is "unfortunate".
The simple truth Larry, is they're just looking for an argument. I've read Hunt's book and no one accuses this of me. Get off of Larry's case and get on mine people. I've read it. All of what the article says is true about Hunts book.