Predestination??

[Beoga]

But there is a serious problem here. If salvation isn't by grace through faith, but something that has been imposed on you against your will, by God, then you really don't know that you are saved.

What Calvinist states or believes that God imposes salvation on us against our will? What Calvinist states or believes that God imposes salvation on us against our will and that is how we are saved instead of salvation by grace through faith?

You may believe you are, but what if you aren't? What if you have just been deceived into believing you are, like those spoken of in Matt. 7:21?

Thus there really isn't any assurance in your version of salvation, but only chance.

That's not the gospel! That's not love! That's not justice!

Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

How do you escape this problem in "your version of salvation?" How do you know that your belief is genuine? How do you you know you havn't been triccked in thinking that you are a genuine Christian, that your faith is genuine?

 

[woobadooba]

No Calvinist will say that they were perfect and that is why God chose them. They will say that God chose them based on His Will alone and not because of any good or perfection found in them. So that is telling you that they have a spirit of pride. A Calvinist has more of a spirit of pride than the non-Calvinist who believes that it was because of their "free will," their better choice, their superior faith, their repentance, their geniusness to choose the God of the Bible over some other god?

You have a lot to learn about love young man.

 

[Beoga]

You have a lot to learn about love young man.

How do I have a lot to learn about love by what you quoted? So, because I make the same kind of statements as Normann did, I am unloving, yet he is not? Or is because I am young I deserve no respect from you? I feel like whatever I write that I disagree with you, instead of you dealing with my post, you will call me unloving or disrespectful. I can't "win" with you. There was no hatred or animosity or an unloving attitude when I wrote that post, and the same with this one. Frustration yes, unloving or rude, no. Yet, I think you are going to reading rude or disrespect into all my posts because that is how you made up your mind about me.

 

[woobadooba]

How do I have a lot to learn about love by what you quoted? So, because I make the same kind of statements as Normann did, I am unloving, yet he is not? Or is because I am young I deserve no respect from you? I feel like whatever I write that I disagree with you, instead of you dealing with my post, you will call me unloving or disrespectful. I can't "win" with you. There was no hatred or animosity or an unloving attitude when I wrote that post, and the same with this one. Frustration yes, unloving or rude, no. Yet, I think you are going to reading rude or disrespect into all my posts because that is how you made up your mind about me.

You misunderstood me. True love is unconditional. But your kind of love is conditional.

God loves us unconditionally. But you make God look like one who only loves those whom He has supposedly saved prior to their existence.

Your idea of love is false, because it is love that shows partiality, which is really not love at all.

God is love! And He gives everyone a chance to be saved.

 

[Beoga]

You misunderstood me. True love is unconditional. But your kind of love is conditional.

God loves us unconditionally. But you make God look like one who only loves those whom He has supposedly saved prior to their existence.

Your idea of love is false, because it is love that shows partiality, which is really not love at all.

God is love! And He gives everyone a chance to be saved.

I apologize then for misunderstanding you.

So you deny that God hates certain individuals?
Does a husband love another women in the same way or with as much love as he loves his own wife?

 

[woobadooba]

I apologize then for misunderstanding you.

So you deny that God hates certain individuals?
Does a husband love another women in the same way or with as much love as he loves his own wife?

God doesn't hate anyone in the sense that you think He does. But He does hate a character that is sinful.

As for comparing God's love with the love that a husband has towards his wife, that is not a fair comparison, since God isn't a husband, but a Father to us all.

A good father does not hate his children, but loves them unconditionally; yet he does not tolerate bad behavior.

 

[yebastick]

The arguement about predestination is not about God's love - it is about time continuum.

We are putting God in a box-concept called Time. And we are supposing Time encompassess God.

But once we realized that God is above and beyond the continuum of time - predestination is no longer of an idea of favored few but God's viewpoint outside the continuum we live.

Once we understand time and all its convulution, then we may have ideas what predestination is all about.

God was, God is, God will be.

Pretty difficult stament to take. But using simple high school physics, you can find out that such stament is not at all unreasonable. Not that God has be explain by physics or science. God is beyond that.


My take.

 

[woobadooba]

The arguement about predestination is not about God's love - it is about time continuum.

We are putting God in a box-concept called Time. And we are supposing Time encompassess God.

But once we realized that God is above and beyond the continuum of time - predestination is no longer of an idea of favored few but God's viewpoint outside the continuum we live.

Once we understand time and all its convulution, then we may have ideas what predestination is all about.

God was, God is, God will be.

Pretty difficult stament to take. But using simple high school physics, you can find out that such stament is not at all unreasonable. Not that God has be explain by physics or science. God is beyond that.


My take.

No, the best argument to use to refute the pseudo idea of Calvinistic predestination is God's love.

 

[yebastick]

Ahh, wooba, no arguement about God's love. And who would?

My point is, it is so hard to understand predestination and no one would fully understand it - while we're here. If the doctrine of predestination trips us in our faith in God, then we must realized God's view of event of things are so different from our view.

And it is a doctrine if no great importance for ones spiritual growth if you decide not to believe neither side.

All my life, I am wary of creating God in my own image.

Peace.

 

[Beoga]

God doesn't hate anyone in the sense that you think He does. But He does hate a character that is sinful.

What do you mean by "a character that is sinful?"

As for comparing God's love with the love that a husband has towards his wife, that is not a fair comparison, since God isn't a husband, but a Father to us all.

A good father does not hate his children, but loves them unconditionally; yet he does not tolerate bad behavior.

How could God not be a husband if the Church is the bride of Christ?
Am I really being unfair by comparing God's love toward us with that of a husband's love toward his wife according to this verse:
Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

 

[BBAS 64]

Well, for the simple fact that they were "cut to the heart", and thus asked, "What shall we do", after Peter had just shared the gospel with them, it is obvious that since he responded by saying "Repent", that the context suggests that they were inquiring about what they must do to become partakers of the gift of salvation. And since after hearing that the gift could only be received by faith in the One whom they had crucified, it was most likely difficult for them to imagine that they could even be saved after rejecting Him. But Peter assured them that they could be saved simply by repenting.

But what did he mean by "repent"? Repentance, according to the Bible, is not merely being sorry for sins that have been committed, but actually turning away from them, so as to allow God to sanctify the mind of the sinner that must be changed. In this case their minds had to be changed about Christ, whom they had crucified, so that they could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit who would in turn assure them that they were free from the guilt of sin, and would give them strength to overcome the power of sin, and assurance that they would one day be free from the nature of it as well.

Good Day, Woobadooba

We, agree!!

The reson they asked such a question was a result of the preaching of the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. God's exersize of that pwoer "picked their hearts", thus changing their view of the darkness that they loved and changing their minds which lead them to ask the question. When one is given hears to eare and eyes to see and the Faith to cry out, then repentance is the product done by the heart unto a God they are no longer enimies with.. by his Grace though his power.

2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

2Ti 2:22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Normann]

No Calvinist will say that they were perfect and that is why God chose them. They will say that God chose them based on His Will alone and not because of any good or perfection found in them. So that is telling you that they have a spirit of pride. A Calvinist has more of a spirit of pride than the non-Calvinist who believes that it was because of their "free will," their better choice, their superior faith, their repentance, their geniusness to choose the God of the Bible over some other god?

I correct you with Calvin's own words...

"...all are not created equal..." John Calvin

Calvins teaching is a judgement against God because...

...it says God is not perfect and makes some people that are junk...
...that God enjoys burning people for eternity...
...that God sends little babies to hell...

Calvinism is a lie because it denies the truth of the scriptures.

Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[ContraMundum]

Acts 13:48 "...and as many who were ordained to eternal life believed."

This is not a good text for Calvinism.

You realise, of course that the case in Greek is debatably middle voice, meaning that they "ordained themselves" or to put it best, "ordered themselves" to eternal life. Of course, this fits the context very well.

This is why this text is seldom used as a proof-text for Calvinism, these days. Simply put, if those who contend for a middle voice understanding are correct, this text sinks Calvinism to the bottom in one fell swoop, whereas if they are wrong, it makes no difference, because the Greek word is not "protasso", foreordain (as in Acts 17:26), but rather is "tetagmenoi", a past perfect form of the military term for "putting in order".

 

[ContraMundum]

see also:
Psalm 65:4
Jeremiah 31:3

Calvinists have their proof-texts, their opponents have theirs.

Here's a hundred or so...
http://www.biblehelp.org/biblesay.htm

 

[woobadooba]

What do you mean by "a character that is sinful?"

Put it this way, you are a person, not a sinful nature. You have a sinful nature, yes, but God doesn't hate you because of this.

God hates the sin, not the sinner.

How could God not be a husband if the Church is the bride of Christ?
Am I really being unfair by comparing God's love toward us with that of a husband's love toward his wife according to this verse:
Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

It is important to recognize the difference between language that is metaphorical, and language that is literal.

Just because God is likened to a husband, that doesn't mean He is one, or that He expresses Himself as one who would be put in the class of the average Joe.

Using arguments like this doesn't support your point, because that is not what these sayings were intended for. It is always best to stick to the context of a passage, to draw from it the intended meaning of the author, rather than to twist it in hope that it might make your argument work.

It will work with those who don't know better, but for those of us who have gone through the pains of spending many hours learning about hermeneutics, and how to exegete a passage, it doesn't work.

 

[BBAS 64]

This is not a good text for Calvinism.

You realise, of course that the case in Greek is debatably middle voice, meaning that they "ordained themselves" or to put it best, "ordered themselves" to eternal life. Of course, this fits the context very well.

This is why this text is seldom used as a proof-text for Calvinism, these days. Simply put, if those who contend for a middle voice understanding are correct, this text sinks Calvinism to the bottom in one fell swoop, whereas if they are wrong, it makes no difference, because the Greek word is not "protasso", foreordain (as in Acts 17:26), but rather is "tetagmenoi", a past perfect form of the military term for "putting in order".

Good Day, ContraMundum

James White Notes on this whole, Acts 13:48... I believe Mounce has written on this as well and said the case for a "middle" here is not supported with in the grammer. Points 5 and 6.

http://aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Acts 13:48
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Well, this letter is more of a small book now, so I must hurry to the last topic I wished to address at this point. I will leave it to others to expand upon the many, many problems/errors/self-contradictions in your work, Dave. For now, I wish to close with the first passage I looked up in the solo copy of your work that lay upon your table at the PFO Conference in April: Acts 13:48, which is found on pp. 210-211. The text, as it is found in the NASB, reads,[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rather than quoting the entirety of the section, let me summarize your argument in the following points:[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1) “ordained” is questionable reading[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2) Many Greek scholars call it a wrong translation.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3) In none of the other uses in the NT does it refer to a decree from God[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4) The Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon does not give “ordain” or “foreordain” as a meaning of the term.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5) I Corinthians 16:15 in the KJV renders tassw as “addicted.”[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6) “Many Greek experts” suggest the translation “disposed themselves to believe.”[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]7) Several authorities identify the KJV’s “wrong” rendering to the “corrupt” Latin Vulgate.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8) Dean Alford rendered it “disposed to eternal life believed.”[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]9) The Expositor’s Greek Testament says this is not about a divine decree.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10) A.T. Robertson said this passage does not decide the debate.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11) “Context” supports the rendering “disposed” rather than “ordained.”[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The person wishing to see if this is a fair summary may consult the referenced pages. First, I note that you did not deal with the exegesis I offered in The Potter’s Freedom outside of simply mentioning the fact that I gave a list of the modern translations that render the passage “ordain” rather than any other translation. But you did not touch on the periphrastic construction that I explained on pages 188-189, nor did you mention the resultant tense meaning. But I shall bring this out as I respond to each point:[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1) You say “ordained” is a questionable reading. In fact, you eventually say it is “wrong,” not just questionable. I think this should be well understood: the same man who said in a public address in my own hearing “I do not read Greek. It might as well be Chinese” has been able to determine that the vast majority of English translations have been duped, seemingly by the Latin Vulgate (point #7). When I say vast majority, I truly mean it. Let’s look at a list:[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
NASB: and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed
NIV: and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ASV: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ESV: and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
ISV: Meanwhile, all who had been destined to eternal life believed.
NET: and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed.
NAB: All who were destined for eternal life came to believe.
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NKJV: And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NLT: and all who were appointed to eternal life became believers.
NRSV: and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]GNB: and those who had been chosen for eternal life became believers
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jerus.: all who were destined for eternal life became believers.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, that’s a pretty impressive list. From the KJV to the ESV, the published translations of the English Bible done by teams of translators render the phrase with remarkable consistency. Are we to believe that they are all just slavishly following the “corrupt” Latin Vulgate? Or did Jerome know something, too?
I looked high and low for a published translation done by a team of scholars that renders the passage “disposed to eternal life.” I found “disposed” in a footnote in the Living Bible. You cited Alford’s commentary. But that was it. Then, one day, I found a published English Bible that reads exactly as you suggest, Dave. It was translated by a team alright, but they were not a team of scholars. You see, the only published English translation I have found that agrees with the “many” Greek scholars you claim are on your side is the following:[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NWT: and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yes, Dave, you have adopted the reading of the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The NWT! You reject the entirety of the published translations noted above, including the King James Version, and adopt the NWT’s reading! Amazing, utterly amazing, don’t you think? It would be humorous if it were not so serious: Dave Hunt identifying the work of all of Evangelicalism’s leading Bible translators as an error, and adopting instead the reading of the NWT. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2) You do not list these “scholars.” You did list some commentators who do not believe the verse speaks to eternal predestination (that is hardly surprising), but you do not provide us with the names of these scholars. Nor can you
do so. Greek scholars happen to know that this periphrastic construction has a pluperfect tense meaning. And that means the action of the construction preceded the act of believing. When you combine this with the actual meaning of the word (which you misrepresent, see below), there is a broad consensus as to the meaning: God appointed men to eternal life, and as a result, they believed. The action of appointing preceded the action of believing. That’s why your list of scholars is conspicuous by its absence, and why, I note, even those you do quote do not address the actual text or its meaning. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3) This is a classic error of hermeneutics and logic. The issue is not, “in the less than ten other uses of this verb in the New Testament does it refer to God’s eternal decree?” but “in this passage is it properly translated “ordained” or “appointed” so that the meaning of the passage makes reference to such a decree? The answer is clear.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4) There are two elements to your error at this point. First, Liddell and Scott is not a koine Greek lexicon. It is not a New Testament lexicon. I note you do not cite from the actual lexicons that deal with the New Testament, and that for good reason: they all contradict you! But choosing a lexicon that is not even specifically about koine Greek speaks volumes. But even louder than this error is the simple fact that you happen to have blown the assertion. Liddell and Scott do give “ordain” as the meaning of tassw in section III, number 2, “appoint, ordain, order, prescribe.” Even more devastating is the fact that the verbal form cited as being translated this way is almost identical to that in Acts 13:48 (tetagmena). Hence, you have not only chosen the wrong lexicon, you didn’t even get what it says correctly. It is yet another testimony against you.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5) Yes, the KJV does, but modern translations are much more accurate at this point, “and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints.” In any case, the passage is only relevant for establishing a general semantic range for the term tassw. The passage, however, does not contain a periphrastic construction that parallels its use at Acts 13:48. There tassw is a simple aorist active. To make the passage relevant to the argument you are attempting to put forward, you would have to explain how an aorist verbal form in another author in a completely different context is relevant to the use in Acts 13:48. But there is more. In 1 Corinthians 16:15 the verb is active and has a direct object. Hence it was something the household of Stephanos did: they dedicated themselves to a particular task. But the perfect participle in Acts 13:48 is passive. This is something that was done to those who believed. You have to attempt to argue a middle voice for the participle, which is not only rare, but in this context, next to impossible to defend. In any case, you have not begun to provide a meaningful ground for your reference of this passage, and hence it must be rejected.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6) One Anglican divine does not equal “many Greek experts,” Dave, and given that Alford did not even attempt to deal with 1) Lukan usage (which, obviously, is the first sphere of interest to us: Acts 22:10 and 28:13 should be the first passages we examine, and both support the understanding of “appointed/ordained” not “disposed”; 2) the periphrastic construction and its resultant tense meaning, we have little basis for putting much stock in his comment. Yet, you said “many” and we only have one. You did cite a few others later on, but only their commentary and interpretation, not their discussion of the actual translation of the text. I can find “Greek scholars” who believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel or who deny the resurrection of Christ. That is not the issue. The relevant question, obviously, is, “Do these ‘many’ Greek scholars deal with the actual textual issues at hand, such as Lukan usage, the periphrastic, the prevalence of the passive participle over a middle form, etc.? You do not cite any for us.[/font]

Cont...

 

[BBAS 64]

............
http://aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]7) There is no question that both Erasmus, in his work on what would eventually become the Textus Receptus, and the King James translators themselves, were deeply influenced by the Latin Vulgate. I do have to wonder, Dave, if you would repeat this defense verbatim when speaking, for example, at Joseph Chambers’ church, a church that defends and supports Gail Riplinger and King James Onlyism? I know you are not fully KJV Only (though that comment you made at dinner about Sinaiticus seems to indicate you have strong leanings that direction: I hope you will refrain, in the future, from repeating the false idea that Sinaiticus was found in a trash can, which is manifestly untrue), but you seem to have inclinations toward the KJV, which makes this whole argument on Acts 13:48 rather problematic for you. Be that as it may, the meaning of the Greek periphrastic construction has not been determined by reference to the Latin Vulgate: instead, Jerome knew what you seemingly do not: that the underlying Greek plainly speaks of a divine action resulting in the belief of those so ordained. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8) See #6.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]9) It surely does (I wonder if you likewise accept the viewpoints expressed in this source on such things as the “rapture” or millennial views?). However, it does so primarily as commentary, not as, noted above, exegesis. Indeed, this seems to be your primary source, hence, you seem to be following Rendall at this point. However, the criticism noted above is relevant here as well, for the only passage cited is non-Lukan and in a very dissimilar context. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10) Yes, Robertson did not interpret the passage as deciding the issue, but, you will note, he did not mistranslate it nor would he support your assertion that ordained is a “wrong” rendering: he says it is not best, but adopts “appointed” instead (not “disposed”). Again, however, you have muddied the waters by confusing a Greek grammarian’s theological interpretations with a Greek grammarians comments on the grammar and syntax of a passage. Robertson says Luke does not tell us why these Gentiles “ranged” themselves on God’s side. I think it is clear that it does, and when we realize that no one, outside of God’s grace, chooses God over evil, the answer is ever clearer. But again, you misuse Robertson’s commentary as if it is a matter of Greek translation: it is not. The only relevance would be toward your use of the context argument, not in support of your assertion that there is some great conflict over the actual translation of tassw here. There isn’t.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11) The only point in which your argument has any kind of even minority support is in your assertion that the context in some way ameliorates the strong statement of divine sovereignty by reference to the disposition of the Jews. Specifically, that since the Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (13:46), this provides the “mirror” so to speak in which to view the meaning of tassw. But there are at least two compelling reasons why the attempted explanation fails: 1) no reason exists to see such a parallel in the language. Luke does not use tassw in 13:46, which would have provided a perfect parallel, the Jews not being “disposed” and the Gentiles being “disposed,” but instead Luke uses completely different words, indicating no parallel in his thinking, and 2) there is no such thing as a person who is “disposed” to eternal life in the first place. As I have already noted, Dave, the very idea that you believe that there are people who are “disposed” to eternal life, aside from being utterly unbiblical, likewise lands you in the middle of having to answer the question, “So why was Dave Hunt disposed to eternal life and someone else was not?” You are still left teaching that some people are better than others, and the reason why one believes and another does not is found in the person and not in God.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Acts 13:48 teaches the divine sovereignty of God over men in the matter of faith and salvation, Dave. Your attempts to get around this have failed. But, hopefully, many will be blessed by the demonstration of your error, at the very least. I do hope you will cease to fight against this truth, and will come to accept it.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Conclusion
[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When I first read Chosen But Free by Dr. Norman Geisler, Dave, I was greatly concerned about the level of confusion it would engender in the minds of many. Norman is a well known scholar with a great reputation, and I knew that many would accept his redefinition of long-established terms without giving it a second thought, resulting in all sorts of confusion. That is why I wrote The Potter’s Freedom. And I have seen that work help so many. In reality, the debate prompted by the publication of those two books has actually facilitated the spread of Reformed theology. The reason is simple: when the truth of God is openly discussed, the message of Scripture can, in fact, be plainly taught, and defended.
I believe the same is true regarding What Love Is This? God will bring much good from this situation as well. Here are the things I see coming out of this situation:
1) Those who are already Reformed in their theology will be encouraged. Why? Because your book fails to even begin to make a coherent or compelling case. Your use of simply wild-eyed, shrill ad-hominem in the form of grossly inaccurate and unfair attacks upon Augustine, Calvin, and Luther, combined with the utter lack of accurate exegesis, and the constant presence of emotionally charged, but logically invalid argumentation, certainly says to me, and to many others with whom I have had contact, that here is another example of the inability of the non-Reformed side to make a decent case.
2) Your followers will be all charged up to attack Reformed theology. While this is unfortunate, you have handed them rifles filled with blanks, quite honestly, and any semi-prepared Reformed believer will be able to point out the many, many holes in the argumentation they put forward. And when folks who are holding What Love is This? in one hand read what Spurgeon really said, or read about all the things Calvin did that you absolutely would have to mention to be even semi fair in your treatment of him, they will have to wonder about the entirety of your presentation. And when they then see the errors in argumentation, citation, and exegesis that fill the pages of your work…well, I know a number of people who once decried Reformed theology who today embrace it because of the debate that was opened up between myself and Dr. Geisler.
3) Many will learn the importance of the phrases sola scriptura, tota scriptura, and semper reformanda. Sola scriptura because of the fact that you hold to your traditions so tenaciously while at the same time denying vociferously their very existence. This is probably the single biggest lesson I hope people will take from this open letter. What could cause Dave Hunt to engage in so much misrepresentation, eisegesis…even to the point of siding with the NWT at Acts 13:48? What force could bring about this result? I say it is the force of tradition. Your traditions run deep, but it is a part of your tradition to eschew traditions! So, you say you have none, and hence, do not allow those you have to be examined in the light of Scripture. Therefore the necessity of the other two statements, tota scriptura (all of Scripture) and semper reformanda, always reforming. We all have our traditions, and it is necessary that we take those traditions to the Word constantly. We cannot do that unless we acknowledge their presence. When we refuse to do that, we must, of necessity, subject the Word to our traditions. And that is what you have done, Dave. You have turned your traditional interpretation, for example, of John 3:16 into the very Word of God itself. To question you on that is to question the very Bible itself! This is why you engage in the kind of argumentation that marks What Love is This? And hopefully people who read this letter and listen to the programs we have done and, Lord willing, watch the debate you have agreed to do with me, will find that out.

[/font]

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[ContraMundum]

BBAS 64-

I've read that before, but thanks anyway.

As I said, regardless of whether the case is middle voice or not, it means little to support the "selective salvation" case. It's the wrong word.

 

[woobadooba]

BBAS 64-

I've read that before, but thanks anyway.

As I said, regardless of whether the case is middle voice or not, it means little to support the "selective salvation" case. It's the wrong word.

In my opinion, I think James White is an egotistical fool. And he doesn't know the difference between translation and interpretation, at least not when he is trying to refute those who disagree with him on his Calvinism.

My experience with him has been that he takes many verses out of context, and ignores sound reasoning when shown that his thoughts are not logically consistent.

 

[ContraMundum]

In my opinion, I think James White is an egotistical fool. And he doesn't know the difference between translation and interpretation, at least not when he is trying to refute those who disagree with him on his Calvinism.

Amen to that.

The guy is denial about so much in the scriptures I can't understand how anyone other than a fundie Baptist can honestly look up to him.

He's kinda typical really, for the old joke that says "why are Reformed pastors such good topical preachers?...because they have to defend Calvinism every Sunday"

You get my drift.

My experience with him has been that he takes many verses out of context, and ignores sound reasoning when shown that his thoughts are not logically consistent.

Not to mention he won't debate decent opponents.