More of Dave Hunt's Misrepresentation of Calvinism

And good afternoon and welcome to The Dividing Line on a Saturday afternoon. We are live here on Saturday December 14th 2002. Continuing this week with the review of a very recent. Again, I don't it's not a sermon.

I don't know how what do you really call it a talk? That was given at. Was that Harvest Christian Fellowship? Is that what was Dave Greg Laurie's church? Yes, Greg Laurie's church in Southern, California.

By Dave Hunt we started this last week where I pointed out that this is a I think an important Talk simply because at this point Unless it's somebody other than Dave Hunt writing this book with me. He's had to have read my opening statements and Therefore would have already heard correction on many of his misapprehensions and Therefore if he continues those misapprehensions, then we have a good reason for believing that he's doing so purposefully or at least that he has no intention whatsoever of accepting correction and that even if he is writing a Even if he is fully aware of what Calvinists say about their positions He's going to simply continue to define His opponents positions on his own where they say he's accurate or not.

That is the historical way that Dave has done things. Unfortunately his books demonstrate this even when going after groups that are unorthodox and outside the mainstream. He has been shown to be very unfair in his criticisms of many of them.

Again seeing on the page only the worst possible things putting the worst possible construct on anything. Never giving a benefit of the doubt never trying to understand the perspective from inside that is that is I think probably the most Common thing that can be said about Dave's writings.

He doesn't understand these movements from the inside. He has no interest in understanding them from the inside. And hence he does not accurately represent The arguments of the other side and that affects his apologetic in many ways.

So we're gonna be continuing that just a quick note as we get going it is getting toward the end of the year and The people the people who listen to this program are not the kind of people that this is overly relevant to unfortunately but I mean that in the sense that people who listen to this program are generally folks Who work hard to make a living and are not overly concerned about having excess funds laying around at the end of the year?

They have to do something with So as to avoid tax issues and things like that I I think the vast majority of folks listening this program have no concept of what that would even be about. But we are facing some Some needs in the ministry, but they are not like many people.

Many ministries, you know, I'm continuing to get stuff from Catholic answers and stuff like that. About you know, everything horrible since September 11th 2001 and and all the rest of this stuff, but in reality Orders are are good.

Things have been steady for us. The issue is not a downturn and we haven't hired anybody else. But quite simply the ministry has never been able to provide our two our huge staff. And I'm the huger of the staff.

The staff with health insurance and things like that. We take care of our families. I primarily through my my wife's employment and It's just been you know, we for many many many years I made minimum wage or below and and only a few years ago managed to sneak above minimum wage and We're just we're just not a big ministry and we are very very very Careful with the funds that we have and we do a lot with the funds that we have and that's why you don't hear me Talking about it very often.

A lot of folks think that we are just set up and well-heeled and all the rest that stuff. That's not true. We just happen to live on a small amount and I think that's good in many ways. We don't have a certain group we have to You know keep happy.

We don't have you know some huge building that we're trying to maintain and all the rest that stuff and I think that's that's allowed us to Be consistent over the years in a way that That would be difficult if we had that kind of a burden of Trying to maintain a large staff and all the rest that kind of stuff.

So my point is that some basically some needs have arisen in the sense that Half of our staff since there's two of us It's not me half of our staff has encountered some medical needs recently and I was unaware until just recently that There is just a massively huge deductible on the insurance policy that that is maintained and not that the ministry as I mentioned and I just don't feel that it's that it's right that that kind of burden be borne by by individuals who are very much dedicated to the work of the ministry and have demonstrated their their dedication to the work of the ministry and and Self-sacrifice and so I really feel that that we need to in in some way shape or form help with this situation.

Indeed, we would covet your prayers for for the future right now. We we don't have any information about the future I'm thankfully God does but We may have more to say about that later on. But right now I'm just letting our folks know that There is a there is a need and if you are in a situation to be able to Assist the ministry at this time.

It would be very much appreciated. It's we're not trying to go do anything fancy or you know, we haven't overspent ourselves and so on so forth. I really think though that it's proper to provide the laborer with wages and Given the expense of medical treatment these days you can understand what happens in situations like that.

So I'm just letting folks know about that Ask you to to pray for us and pray for the ministry and if you can be of financial assistance That would be very very much appreciated. So just want to let everybody know about that if you listen on an archive, it's probably still True whenever you're listening to it down the road whenever that might be So want to make that that need known to folks.

So as I mentioned last week we had begun Listening to a a talk and I guess that's what you have it at Calvary Chapel type churches our talks and Dave Hunt gave a talk it's 70 some odd minutes in length including the audience questions at the end and We started listening.

We heard 11 cuts last week. I've been working on them this morning and have let me look here I'm up to cut 28 now. So I've got what 17 more made since them and Of course last week we had something right at the beginning.

Concerning the cruise don't forget about that coming up in a year from now. That does help to benefit the ministry as well and Don't forget that that cost has come down a good bit. So, please click on the cruise link on our on our website.

If you're looking if you haven't figured out what to get the wife for a Christmas yet. So there's a good suggestion for you. Hey, honey, let's let's get out of the snow next year and go to the Caribbean now she'll love you for that and and And she'll think it was mondo expensive when in reality it wasn't but anyways so we talked a little bit about the cruise and then we talked about Jerry Matta ticks and those of you who are wondering if I heard back not a whisper.

Not a word, but hey, you know, I've also got to recognize that. Mr. Matta ticks might be in Rome he might be on a pilgrimage someplace. I haven't the foggiest idea so we'll we'll keep an eye on that, but We only spend about 45 minutes or so on the Dave Hunt situation and sort of that sort of cut things back.

So we might be able to get a little bit more done today as we listen to these these clips. But the reason I'm responding as I said before To this particular talk other than the fact that I am mentioned in it briefly Is the fact that at least now we we have a talk where Dave is Presenting his polemic against Calvinism and he's doing so having full knowledge.

And in fact admitting a few times Knowing what Calvinists say in response now the honest person will then take into consideration The responses that are offered and Then we'll sharpen their critique sharpen their arguments based upon that.

However, that's not what we have taking place. So anyways, let's continue listening. These are direct clips. This is taken directly off of the videotape of the of the presentation Dave Hunt.

Continues. His critique of Calvinism doesn't mean exactly what you think it means. Well different Calvinists say different things. I find they don't all agree with one another but What they mean by total depravity they mean in ability.

Unable to believe the gospel. Now, I don't find a verse Anywhere in the Bible. It says that Jesus said go in all the world preach the gospel every creature. It sounds like everybody could believe it if they wanted to now notice what's said there.

First of all, Dave says I've never seen a verse in the Bible now. He has tried in vain to deal with John 644. He turns John 644 into a testimony for free will By turning the text completely and totally on its head and he would never be able to defend what he says about John 6 Against a knowledgeable person who can do exegesis of text scripture.

It's just not possible and I would like to be able to demonstrate that sometime but He says first of all, I've never seen a verse that says that man is unable. Even though ooh do not I is used in John 644.

It's used in Romans 8 7 through 8, etc, etc but he Seemingly hasn't seen that and then do you hear the thinking going on in his mind when he says? You're supposed to preach the gospel everyone. That sounds like everyone can believe.

Why does the one fall from the other? Just because we are to preach to all does not mean that all have the capacity. This goes back to what we said last week. He keeps going on on gets very passionate.

We're supposed to preach to everybody. Why should you do that if some of them are damned to hell? Well Dave, it's because we don't know who the elect are and therefore we preach the gospel all knowing That if it is going to have the Divine if the divine birth is going to take place if it's going to Take root and grow and produce fruit.

It's because God by his Spirit blesses that proclamation in the hearts of his Elect which is why Paul could tell Timothy I have endured all things what for the sake of who? The elect now now Dave and he needs to be warned about this.

Dave likes to mock that use he likes to take verses that he does not understand and Try to twist them in mockery of Calvinism. So he'll say things. You know instead of whosoever it'll be so the elect may believe or something like that in a mocking fashion.

We have a cut we'll get to later on. This this afternoon where he really engages in a tremendous amount of mockery. He's playing to the crowd. And yet here you have Paul saying to Timothy. I have endured these things for the sake of the elect and Who are they?

Well again, we don't know who they are when we stand upon a street corner and preach. We don't know when we do a radio broadcast. We don't know when we preach a sermon. But God does and just because we don't know doesn't mean that that's not a divinely revealed Truth and so there's no connection Me between the statement.

We're to preach to all people. Yes, we are. It does not follow then that John 644 doesn't mean what John 644 says that is an unfounded assumption. That is a part of Dave Hunt's tradition tradition. Not scripture, but tradition and that's what we are seeing here in.

Mr. Hunt's Commentary at this particular point in time. So that's the first thing to to look at now looking at the and I've got so many I've got so many files open here if my computer doesn't crash. I'll actually be somewhat surprised but continuing on this comment.

Physical death with spiritual death. Of course a physically dead person can't believe but a spiritually dead person can. Physically dead person can't even sin. You cannot equate physical Death with spiritual.

Yeah, it's a it's a form of.

Materialism now, I'm not sure how in the world that's a form of materialism in any way shape or form. But he's talking here about what he says is the improper application of physical death the spiritual death.

Well, if he wants to argue that when Paul says you were dead in your trespasses and sins. That means something different than let him do so. But again, mr. Hunt doesn't derive from the text. Any Exegetical conclusions that would say well dead doesn't really mean dead here dead has some other meaning.

Instead what we hear over and over again. In fact a large portion of this this entire presentation Was really an argument against Paul. He goes through some of the passages on total depravity as we heard him last week he'll well, no one does good but but but Noah did good.

In fact, I realized you know, it's really strange. Sometimes you're You know, you're doing something else. I think I was Loading something on my palm tungsten tea. What a massive thing it is. Anyways, I was loading something on there or doing something.

I was doing something technical. I remember it was it was technical. It's one of those things where you're just clicking on things and loading things and extracting files and all of a sudden it hits me.

You've got PDA envy there son. All of a sudden it hits me. I forgot when I played the clip last week where he makes reference to To this to make a comment on ear that or it's coming up on the two and I'm not sure which one it is.

But at some point in this presentation He says well No one can do good but but obviously Noah found grace. It wasn't just granted to him as one of the elect. He found grace in the eyes Lord. So he must have done his whole argument is against Paul.

I mean he makes he makes there are Augustinian Roman Catholics that have a higher view a More biblical view of grace and man's will than Dave hunt us the man borders on absolute positive Pelagian ism at times and Sadly the people applaud it and they laugh at it and they think it's wonderful.

You heard them laughing a dead man can't even sin. Is that somehow relevant to this? No. It's not relevant to this at all if he claims to have read hundreds of Calvinist then he knows beyond all shadow of a doubt That what we're talking about is inability to do good not inability to do evil.

He knows all those things, but he just doesn't simply you know, he just chooses not to deal with the reality of what we are attempting to communicate and as such is his.

Obviously his criticisms do not get him very far and they bring them out very powerfully.

But they ignore. Let me give you the context in this one again. I'm not sure why I cut it where I did but you know. Sometimes this happens. He is saying the Calvinists have their favorite verses they have their favorite arguments.

That's the the context what he's saying here. Now listen to what he then applies that to and they bring them out very powerfully. But they ignore The whole body of Scripture hundreds of other verses that give you the other side of the picture so they Major on their proof text.

They major on their proof texts well What in the world is it when? Most books such as mr. Hunts or Norman Geisler's repeat 2nd Peter 3 9 1st Timothy 2 4 and Matthew 23 37 over and over and over and over again without ever Seriously even trying to respond to the exegetical Demonstration that these works simply do not these passes its passages simply do not teach What their tradition assumes they teach?

Isn't isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? The proof texting is being done by the Arminian the exegesis is what is being offered by the Reformed perspective and Dave hunt doesn't know how to offer exegesis.

He doesn't have any interest in offering exegesis and in fact as we will see He in essence Dismisses the importance of doing sound exegesis and mocks Calvinist for even attempting to engage in that activity.

What about there's none that do it good?

Well We ah see I knew it was coming up I knew I say I made this clip last week, but you can't always remember what what you said.

Here's the clip. I was talking about just a few moments ago. What about. There's none that do it good? Well We have at least one exception back there to Genesis 6 5 and that was Noah don't we? God was gonna destroy the whole world, but there was one man Who found grace in the sight.

It doesn't say the one man to whom God gave grace because he had predestined him He found grace. There must have been something.

On Noah's part. Something on Noah's part you see we have all tried to explain to Dave that fundamentally what he's saying is That the reason someone is saved is because they are better than someone who is not.

And that I don't see how he gets around that in fact. He's seemingly admitting that why did Noah find grace. Well because Noah was better Noah. Noah deserved it now. He didn't say that did he he didn't say that but is that an improper Reading of what he's saying Noah found grace.

What does that mean? Well obviously Dave is attempting to make the grace that Noah found the same as the grace that saves. That's a obvious Misuse of the phrase. That's not. Not at all the the case, but even even at that what was it about Noah.

Doesn't that mean Noah was better. And he was better on his own wasn't he. Oh, he might oh, no he was better because God well wait me you just said No, Noah found grace, and there must have been something in Noah that caused and received that grace not the way around.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. This dances on the very edge of Pelagianism as I said I know Augustinian Roman Catholics that would disagree with this. Who would say no no no no no? And of course Dave hunts going yeah, see Augustinian Roman Catholics see as if see I'll say in August in the first Roman Catholic.

And we'll I don't think we get to that this week, but he goes into that Toward the end of his presentation and just enough to make anyone who has a historical bone in their body just cringe. At the gross misuse of historical information, but anyways, let's let's press on That since you cannot.

Respond to God you are totally you're dead and and and totally Unable to even believe the gospel then God must reach out to you now. Why does he do this? Unconditionally. In other words there's nothing in you why God should do it, but now we have a problem.

Why does he? Predestined some to heaven and others to hell there's no difference between them. Nothing in them that would cause me to do that and there is nothing in God Will it cause me to do that. He has no respect for persons.

There's no shadow of turning with him. So I can't find a reason in God or in them why he would choose This person and and and not that person. So we we have a we have another another problem.

And well that problem is is Dave's. Because he won't allow the scriptures to speak for themselves. Did you hear what I said? Well if there's nothing in them and see he's arguing against that. He is arguing that God chooses us based upon something in us our faith.

God chooses us because we believe so that's part and parcel. So some so why does one person believe in another doesn't there must be something in them. They must be in some way shape or form better. But you hear the argument that that he's using well if there's nothing in God because he's no respecter of persons.

What was respecter of persons mean? Isn't Dave hunt the way in one saying God is respecter of persons because he chooses based on what we do. He chooses us based upon who's better. He is a respecter of persons from the Arminian perspective, and I know I'm not an Arminian.

Yes, you are Dave. It's just a historical word that describes your belief. The only difference you have with Arminius is on Perseverance of the Saints or eternal security and and your doctrine of eternal security is is absolutely without any foundation whatsoever.

You don't even allow for the possibility of the existence of false faith or false assurance or anything like that. It's it's a weird thing, but anyways. It's an Arminian position. It's very clearly an Arminian position and so he's he's he's in essence saying well if God-chooses.

And he doesn't choose based on anything at us and anything within him. Well, then you've got a conundrum and yet He himself is the one who's saying that God's choices depend upon those who do it better.

They they're more spiritual. They they believe in some way shape or form the way someone else does not he's the ones making God a respecter of persons now. The biblical phrase respecter of persons means God does not look upon a person's race upon a person's money.

Upon a person's social status and say well, I like rich people. I'm gonna just take rich people to heaven. That's what a respecter of persons is about that's has nothing to do with the fact that God chooses but you see if God chose based upon anything in the creature that would make him a Respecter of persons so it's Dave is contradicting himself.

He is the one who has. Because he he just simply refuses to listen to correction refuses to listen anyone trying to help him out. Is is not seeing it's not now and he says there's nothing in God because it's not a respecter of persons.

Okay, but what about the clear biblical teaching that the basis of God's Selection is the counsel of his will. The basis of God's election is his own mercy and grace. Why won't he deal with that? Well, we'll see if he does deal with that because obviously I presented a very strong case for that In my own materials that he has to respond to.

On this particular subject going of course to Ephesians chapter 1. Let's try to sneak. This is the minute and a half clip one more clip in here and a few comments before we take our break.

Predestination is always because of foreknowledge. Whom he foreknew. Romans 8 29 whom he foreknew he predestined To salvation no to be conformed to the image of his son. He could save you without conforming you to the image of Christ.

He predestined whom he foreknew. Well, what would that mean?

Did you catch that? Let me let me play out one little section.

I know it's a minute and a half, but let's just just. You've got to catch this. 29 whom he foreknew he predestined To salvation no to be conformed to the image of his son. He could save you without conforming you to the image of Christ.

You hear that?

This this is a major may I mean there should be Arminians Up in arms saying Dave hunt you have no idea what you're talking about. He can save you without conforming you to the image of Christ. Being conformed to the image of Christ is a special blessing and And not all Christians are to be conformed the image of Christ, that's how he gets around these pads.

Well, there's nothing that says that you're you're you're elect to salvation. We pointed out that when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he contradicted that you've been chosen from the beginning for salvation.

A passage that Dave never deals with anywhere in Scripture anywhere in his in his book. I mean. But here he gets around it well foreknown he's gonna say well foreknown it just means looking in the future and.

Yet you're gonna see he knows what the answer that is. But he's gonna misrepresent it and then not deal with even the misrepresentation very well, but you've got to hear that statement. Being predestined to can be conformed the image of Christ.

Does not mean you're predestined to salvation. Now, excuse me. Is this okay, even if you said that even if you said ah, this is just two blessings. Is that blessing given to anyone who is unsaved? So if you're predestined that blessing doesn't that Imply salvation in fact necessitate salvation is is a non saved person ever conformed the image of Christ.

Hmm 29 whom he foreknew he predestined To salvation no to be conformed to the image of his son. He could save you without conforming you to the image of Christ. He predestined whom he foreknew. Well, what would that mean?

Well. The ones I believe that he knew would respond to the gospel. He marked out a special blessing For them. Otherwise, why talk about foreknowledge? Well, the Calvinist has a problem. So then he has to say prognostico.

Prognosis that means to know in advance. Well, what that really means is.

Predetermined. Now, let me stop him right there. Notice something that's going on here. And I know we need we're coming up on our break precinct. We'll just pick this this quote up afterwards, but notice what's going on here.

Dave Hunt is Confusing the verb and the noun. He's using them interchangeably now. You can't do that. That's not sound exegesis, but he's doing it anyways. Now he knows he just pronounced even pronounced correctly.

Prognostico. But that's the verb and then he uses prognosis. That's the noun. They're used in different ways. This has been explained to him and you'll see now he's gonna say well that means predetermined.

No one says that means predetermined for loved but not predetermined. That's why debates have to take place. You can stop that right there and say no you're wrong. Here's what's actually being said now.

Respond to the reality. If you can't debate they can always Run off on these rabbit trails and you never get anywhere. Well, we'll continue with this cut on the other side of the break here on the dividing line.

We'll be right back and welcome back to the dividing line. The stream the streams. The dulcet tens of Steve camp there and pilgrims progress. Bringing us back to our study of well, you know study sounds so so serious, but anyways our review of Dave Hunt's talk at a Calvary Chapel type Church of late on Calvinism.

We're halfway through a little little clip here. I was gonna play the whole thing, but I keep having to stop it. Dave promoting the concept of foreknowledge. I think we'll just stop that there and.

Start again. Well what that really means is Predetermined. So now we have a redundancy. Whom he predetermined. He predetermined. Who he predetermined he predestined. That's not what the Bible says. Foreknowledge is always a first Peter chapter 1.

Elect. Can you finish the verse according to what the foreknowledge? According to the foreknowledge. Elect according to the foreknowledge. Something God knew in advance Caused him to elect certain people not to salvation but to a blessing.

What could that have been. Those that he knew would respond the gospel. Well, there's there's the standard view.

But did you notice not a single word of refutation? Not a single word of refutation of the actual meaning of the verb. No mention of the fact that it has been explained to him now. He's you know I've read hundreds of Calvinists.

Well if you've read hundreds of Calvinists then at least 50 times. You have read that when the verbal form of Progonosco. That is the verbal form not that not the noun form. Not what you have in the passage you is just repeating over and over again.

But in the verbal form when it's used with God's subject its object is always persons. Not what persons do now if I knew that fact. Then how in the world? Could I stand in front of an audience of hundreds or even thousands of people and Pretend I'm giving an answer.

When I know I'm not giving an answer, and I don't have an answer. I Don't understand that. I Honestly do not understand that. How can you do that? I I I don't know. I I just don't know. Well we continue on the call particular.

Redemption the Senate of Dort said quote the most precious death of his son. Should it should extend to all those and those only who were from eternity chosen to salvation. See the Calvinist argues like this.

Are you going to say that Christ paid on the on the cross? He paid the penalty for the sins of people who will also pay that penalty themselves in eternal hell. Now that's double a double payment. That's not.

That's not right. Are you going to say that the sum of the blood of Jesus was wasted on the cross it was poured out? For the redemption of those who were reject him so some of the blood of Jesus was rejected.

I'm sorry. Was was.

Wasted. Now let me stop that just there. I was gonna let it go on a little bit farther, but here here is Dave's attempt. To deal with the arguments for particular redemption. Such as presented by Charles Haddon Spurgeon in the very sermon that that hunt quoted where he said that hunt unequivocally denied particular redemption.

Except he presented this very argument that he's now responding to so much for the meaning of unequivocal. And yet still he will not present the actual argument. It's not that the blood of Christ was wasted.

Those of you who are reformed know I hope what the real essence of the argument is. The real essence of the argument has to do with substitutionary Atonement and that is. That from the Arminian perspective from Dave Hunt's perspective who seemingly he just talked about for knowledge.

So he believes in what's called SF simple for knowledge. God knows all future events not because of an eternal decree, but through some special ability of knowledge. He knows all future events. We knows who's going to accept him and yet knowing that.

Knowing who is going to accept him. He still lays the sins the the guilt of sin. He's going to talk about sin versus sins here in a moment. It doesn't make any difference. He lays the wrath that is due the sin for every single individual that is going to be in hell upon his son knowing That he's doing so in vain.

That is the objection. That is what Spurgeon called monstrous, and I think we could say Spurgeon meant that unequivocally. That is what the objection is and Dave Hunt will not deal with it. Listen.

See the Calvinist argues like this. Are you going to say? That Christ paid on the on the cross he paid the penalty for the sins of people who will also pay That penalty themselves in eternal hell now.

That's double a double payment. That's not. That's not right. Are you going to say that the sum of the blood of Jesus was wasted on the cross it was poured out? For the redemption of those who will reject him so some of the blood of Jesus was rejected.

I'm sorry was was Wasted. Wait a minute. If we've been only one person To be saved it would have taken all of the blood of Jesus, right? He had to pay the penalty for Adam's sin. The Bible talks more about sin and offering for sin then for sins.

God's justice had to be satisfied. Even if there were only one person you can't say this. Drop of God's blood was shed for that person in this drop of God's of Christ blood was shed for that person.

And so forth. Well, that's not the point. No one is trying to divide the blood of Christ up. We're simply saying if you believe in substitutionary atonement if you say Christ died for me in my place Bore God's wrath against sin in my place Then you have to answer the question if God the Father knew that John Thomas Was going to die in rejection of Christ and undergo eternal punishment for his sins Why would God the Father lay the sins of John Thomas Upon his son knowing that this would make Christ suffer needlessly.

Why? That's why we have to do a debate because even though I've asked that question I asked that question the Potter's freedom, which certainly got cited enough in Dave's book to allegedly tell us that it's been read.

And Since I asked that question, I think I deserve an answer not an obfuscation an answer an unequivocal one, please. I Think that's a fair thing to request. No response is here offered. That is just trying to do an end around and get around the reality of the argument.

Well, we continue.

There you died arguments from the original Greek and this and I'll tie you up in knots. All to prove that whosoever doesn't really mean whosoever. Now did you catch that?

That's that's how Dave Hunt's responds to the documentation that for example in John chapter 3 verse 16 The King James rendering whosoever Does not have a basis in the Greek language to support his tradition.

Now remember Dave Hunt thinks that whosoever Means there is no election and everyone's able. He's reading two huge conclusions into one English word and Yet Dave will tell you and he will tell you honestly.

He couldn't show you in a Greek text the words that make up the Greek phrase That is translated whosoever if his life Depended on it. If you walked up to Dave Hunt and opened up a Greek New Testament and handed to him and said show me whosoever he would have no idea and yet when presented With the fact that for example in John 3 16 it is everyone believing so whosoever believes Whoever in the group that believes will receive eternal life.

Everyone in that group not whosoever Therefore has the capacity to believe or whosoever in the sense that those that those who believe is not a chosen group. The word the phrase doesn't even begin to address any of that, but despite being told that Knowing that having heard that His only response, and I don't know about you you tell me does this sound to me.

It sounds to me it sounds to you like mockery.

Are you died. Arguments from the original Greek and this and I don't know. Tie you up in knots.

Are you died arguments? It doesn't that sound like mockery to me. Sounds like I can mean. Does it sound like mockery to you? Does he provide a response? All to prove that. Whosoever doesn't really mean whosoever.

No, that's not what it proves. It proves whosoever has a meaning different than Dave Hunt's tradition and. And see Dave Hunt will not examine his tradition. He will not allow his tradition to be seen for what it is.