What Love is this? By Dave Hunt

[russell55]

BTW, if I might add that I don't think that Hunt is intentionally misleading. I think he has real troubles comprehending. In the quote I quoted in the above post, I think Mr. Hunt read the quote from Carson and didn't understand what Carson was saying, so he thought Carson's statements supported his point when they didn't.

Same thing goes for the "Spurgeon didn't believe in limited atonement" statements. Hunt misunderstood what the doctrine of limited atonement actually is, and that lead him to believe that Spurgeon denied it when actually Spurgeon was making one of the classic statements of it.

Its these sorts of mistakes that were behind the pleas that Hunt refrain from publishing that came even from some who agreed with him about Calvinism being wrong. The way he used his sources made him look foolish, and showed that he didn't really understand the issues.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by whetstone:
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.

That's because you have claim to have read the book and appeear to discuss it from that viewpoint.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Whetstone,
I said, 'Your denomination has no power to get you into Heaven.'

You said, 'Calvinism isn't a denomination. Your ignorance is peeking through!'

I do not mean to 'put down' the Reformed Baptists but they are synonymous with the Five Points of Calvinism.

Tell me something I don't know, Mr. Whetstone, and I will put a red star on the top of your paper.

Please, now go ahead and accuse me of pride. I wanted to say it before you get to think it.

Calvinism has nearly become the denomination of Reformed Baptists and perhaps Primitive Baptists.

Beyond the 5 pts. are there any things they got correct?

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Whetstone;
I'm just wondering just when you plan to show cause for your dislike of Hunt's book. Give me a page number and your complaint. Then we'll discuss it.
You tell me I don't know what I'm talking about but then you haven't shown us anything to show that you do know. I don't believe you. In fact I don't believe you ever read the book. Sort of like that clanging symbol. Just making a lot of Racket. The truth is Whetstone your the one who doesn't know what your talking about.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[whetstone]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Hi Whetstone;
I'm just wondering just when you plan to show cause for your dislike of Hunt's book. Give me a page number and your complaint. Then we'll discuss it.
You tell me I don't know what I'm talking about but then you haven't shown us anything to show that you do know. I don't believe you. In fact I don't believe you ever read the book. Sort of like that clanging symbol. Just making a lot of Racket. The truth is Whetstone your the one who doesn't know what your talking about.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

Thank you for your false accusations and lack of evidence regarding those accusations. You don't have to believe me. Here's how I came across Hunt's book:

My roommate at school purchased the book as a present for his dad when he got home. Over the course of the semester I read the book and took some notations on a 3x5 card. I finished it and he took the book with him along with the card. Would I purchase the book for myself and give Hunt a dime? Not on your life. Did I read the book- yes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your skepticism. That you can be a skeptic? Why not address the articles in question written by more scholarly men than myself. They have done a more than adequate job in quelling your defense of this horrible book. If you have paid Hunt the money for it you might as well study it. I would think you would appreciate some scholarly critique of a book you own. Wouldn't you rather have the truth than to read something that panders to you? Regards,

Daniel Allen
www.spurgeon.us

 

[whetstone]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Whetstone,
I said, 'Your denomination has no power to get you into Heaven.'

You said, 'Calvinism isn't a denomination. Your ignorance is peeking through!'

I do not mean to 'put down' the Reformed Baptists but they are synonymous with the Five Points of Calvinism.

On this board you are correct. In reality there are many other denominations that accept Calvinism. They are synonymous to you in your limited scope here. here is a list of USA churches that hold to reformed theology

Tell me something I don't know, Mr. Whetstone, and I will put a red star on the top of your paper.

w00t! Please, feel free to call me Dan.

Please, now go ahead and accuse me of pride. I wanted to say it before you get to think it.

I don't know how that will really factor into the discussion on Dave Hunt. We're all proud to one degree or another. But let's stick to issues rather than people.

Calvinism has nearly become the denomination of Reformed Baptists and perhaps Primitive Baptists.

What's in a name? Just because a denomination is Calvinistic doesn't mean Calvinism is a denomination. That would be like saying 'pre-trib rapture' was a denomination. It's a theological position- it disqualifies itself from becoming a denomination.

Beyond the 5 pts. are there any things they got correct?

I dunno. I don't go to a reformed or primitive baptist church. Ours is independant fundamental- but our pastor is a Calvinist. God bless.

Daniel Allen
www.spurgeon.us

 

[whatever]

To the book - Hunt says this:

Spurgeon himself, so often quoted by Calvinists to support their view, rejected Limited Atonement, though it lies at the very heart of Calvinism and follows inevitably from its other points - and he did so in unequivocal language:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discerns no shore . . . . Having a divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice.

</font>[/QUOTE]Would anyone here like to defend this view of Spurgeon as accurate? Before you do, you might want to read this sermon called "Particular Redemption".

 

[Ray Berrian]

Dan,

My wife and I are trying to find a good Gospel preaching church in our area. Sunday we went to First Baptist Church in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The address is: 3235 Linden Street. www.fbc-bethlehem.org

Are Independent Baptist Churches more toward Biblical interpretation or are they Five Point Calvinists? In other words do they believe more like I do---than toward Calvinism.

I have heard Dr. Stanley several times on television and I believe he is correct in his interpretation of Scripture. I am 99% sure he is a Southern Baptist by way of denomination. I agree with his Eschatology also.

The message was practical and helpful to both of us. I do not know if this denomination is Southern Baptist or something else.

Ray

 

[Ray Berrian]

Dan

After going to the www. as noted in my last post, I see they believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Unlimited Atonement. I, of course, believe this too.

I do not know if they are Southern Baptists? The Senior Pastor is Rev. Ronald Kuntz.

Ray

 

[whetstone]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Dan

After going to the www. as noted in my last post, I see they believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Unlimited Atonement. I, of course, believe this too.

I do not know if they are Southern Baptists? The Senior Pastor is Rev. Ronald Kuntz.

Ray

Here is what their doctrinal statement says in the matter: "We believe that salvation was accomplished solely by the finished work of Christ shedding His blood upon the cross, and that nothing on the part of man can avail for salvation. We believe that salvation was provided for the whole world, and that whoever believes in Jesus Christ receives the new birth and becomes a partaker of the divine nature."

I don't disagree with that. Just because they say Christ died for the sins of the world doesn't mean they are universal redemptionists. I'd have to read a section of belief on election in particular to see that. Calvinists indeed do believe Christ died for the sins of the world. But by clarification- he died for men and women of all tongues, kindreds and nations- not every single person that has ever lived.

The doctrinal statement avoids the issue (as does the SBC doctrinal statement). Perhaps this is to steer clear of the inevitable conflict that ensues when you take a clear-cut stand in the matter? God bless.

Daniel Allen
www.spurgeon.us

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Whetstone;

Thank you for your false accusations and lack of evidence regarding those accusations. You don't have to believe me. Here's how I came across Hunt's book:

Mikes reply;
You say you've read it yet you have nothing to add to the conversation about it your self. Thats why I don't believe you. Don't you remember what you read?

My roommate at school purchased the book as a present for his dad when he got home. Over the course of the semester I read the book and took some notations on a 3x5 card. I finished it and he took the book with him along with the card. Would I purchase the book for myself and give Hunt a dime? Not on your life. Did I read the book- yes.

Mike's reply;
On 3X5 Cards and you have nothing to place on your own thread that adds to the conversation.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with your skepticism. That you can be a skeptic?

It's true I don't believe everything I read, do you?
Aren't you a skeptic as well?

Why not address the articles in question written by more scholarly men than myself. They have done a more than adequate job in quelling your defense of this horrible book.

I have on the last thread about this same subject as well as this one. If you understood what I wrote you wouldn't have made this statement.

If you have paid Hunt the money for it you might as well study it. I would think you would appreciate some scholarly critique of a book you own. Wouldn't you rather have the truth than to read something that panders to you? Regards,

You mean like Spurgeon panders to you.

You haven't made one accurate quote and neither has those so called scholarly men you've mentioned. All except for the first aren't even in the book on the page given. Not to mention that the first quote is a bonafide misquote. Has there been a reprint or revision of the book? I don't believe there has as yet it's still sold just as it was when I bought my copy.
In effect you start a thread about a subject and like Larry you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You just complain about it but on your own you're not able to give reason, or prove your false claims.

May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

Hi Whetstone;
I'm just wondering just when you plan to show cause for your dislike of Hunt's book. Give me a page number and your complaint. Then we'll discuss it.
You tell me I don't know what I'm talking about but then you haven't shown us anything to show that you do know.

But I have, Mike, and the truth is that you don't want to talk about it. You want to run and hide. Why not talk about the issues I presented?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Are Independent Baptist Churches more toward Biblical interpretation or are they Five Point Calvinists?

What a loaded question. This is like asking "Are you a heretic or a Calvinist?" You would reject the premise of the question (as would I). But your question is no better.

In other words do they believe more like I do---than toward Calvinism.

This is what you should have said. Discussion is not helped by bad logic and argumentation.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Larry;

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT;
I'm just wondering just when you plan to show cause for your dislike of Hunt's book. Give me a page number and your complaint. Then we'll discuss it.
You tell me I don't know what I'm talking about but then you haven't shown us anything to show that you do know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I have, Mike,

Not so Larry you have not given honest information about His book at all. All you have done is post somebodies elses false accusations. Which I have already disproved directly from the book. You haven't given any information of your own to the subject at all.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where did you disprove anything from the article? I missed that post. Please point out where you disproved what the article said.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Larry
2nd Page, this thread, 4th post down. I shop exactly what that first page said and you're wrong. It's a direct quote from Daves book. 1st and only edition that I know of.
The exact same book is still sold exactly as I have it at the Ark book store.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[Ray Berrian]

Post edited for violation of forum policies. Remember, this forum is about theology, not about history. If you would like to post on Calvin as a person, or on historical matters about Calvin, please feel free to post in the history or other discussions forum. Limit your participation here to discussions about theology.

[ October 19, 2005, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, and just below that I responded to your exact claim. I said: 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.

IN other words, your supposed "refutation of the false claim" didn't even address the claim. The quote you give from Douty is not what was under discussion.

Follow here, Mike. This is easy stuff. Douty writes of 70 people (including Calvin) who "opposed Calvinism." What Douty actually wrote about was people who advocated general redemption, or unlimited atonement.

So your citation of Douty didn't address the point being made.

Your "refutation" of Spurgeon ignores what Spurgeon said. Spurgeon said, To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. Do you believe that isn't limited atonement? Hunt clearly misrepresented Spurgeon's position.

YOu obviously didn't look closely for Vance's comment, and perhaps don't even understand what the problem is.

You completely ignored Hunt's distortion of Robertson.

In other words, Mike, you haven't addressed even one issue yet sufficiently, much less all of them. Hunt's book is bad. Surely you can recognize that Hunt distorted and misrepresented people's view. That is unethical, no matter what your intent is.

 

[whetstone]

As for me, I'm done talking to you Mike. I'd have better luck with a brick wall. Regards,

Daniel Allen
www.spurgeon.us

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Whetstone;

As for me, I'm done talking to you Mike. I'd have better luck with a brick wall. Regards,

If you really read Dave Hunt's book and took notes as you claim then you should be able to show us your claims. If your going to give up I'll let it go as proof that I'm right. The thing that is amazining is, I proved you wrong with a question and not a statement.
The easiest debate I ever won.

May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike