March 23, 2006

Scripture, Theology, and the Problem of Ad Hominem in Blog Criticism

So the Phoenix, Arizona, this is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States.

It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

And welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon. We are sort of flying by the seat of our pants today because this will in fact Be hopefully. Is. Am I not correct? This should be it for doing this here, right?

Yep. This is it.

Soon as like I said before as soon as we get done with this webcast We're gonna be. You can notice the echo in the room. In my room, too. Yeah. You know banging out the shells here but we've been you know getting ready to undo all the bailing wire and the duct tape and take the chewing gum off and.

Some of it's gotten pretty crusty over the years. Yeah. Well, you know a sharp knife takes care of everything.

Yeah, I'm echoing this. Yes. I know. I know. Hey, you know I was thinking about doing one dividing line down there before we put the window in. Everybody just here, you know you on the phone and you know the echoing and the whole nine yards.

I'd be sort of fun. Yeah, really? Yeah, they don't know that we use a voice synthesizer for you. That's the actual voice. I Just turn this knob right here and I sound wonderful. Yes. Okay. Thank you. It's very much.

Okay. Anyway, mm-hmm get serious here for a little while. I do have the dr. Davis Sermon all ready to go here. I love these cue things these these things I've come up with have these neat cues. And allows me to just this is just going to be wonderful when I do more of this stuff in the future.

But anyways, I do have that. However, I have a few other things that we we need to take care of before we get started today. First very quickly as I said on the program on the blog that's a program too, but it's a different guy program.

But anyways, as I said on the blog, I wanted to very very briefly and I do mean very briefly Just make a comment of getting the program today in regards to theological meditations the theological meditations blog.

I It was interesting the fellow who let me know about this Later told me that this this Tony fellow had tried to get hold of me But couldn't and then all of a sudden we realized I had gotten an email from Tony and it was In fact, I'd even looked at his blog article where he had said something about my Possible future debate with Ergon the canner and From Liberty University and I had looked at that.

But we we got I don't know how many dozens of emails myself that were forwarded to me During that period of time about things and so I I couldn't respond every single one of them. But anyway, someone directed me to an article posted I guess yesterday Morning or sometime yesterday.

It's dated Wednesday, March 22nd the results of white's systematic Isogesis seen Isogesis misspelled. And it was I very quickly yesterday morning just threw up One paragraph on Revelation chapter 5 and I did so in what context anybody who listens this program knows the context is dealing with Dave hunts and and people who who are constantly attacking reform theology in the concept of the redeeming work of Christ being perfect in and of itself so on so forth and then Yesterday we got a note from a fellow named Steve and and he was disagreeing with what I was saying.

And and I responded that on my blog and so I looked at this one the guy was saying well you know, this guy is is obviously has much better arguments and I start reading it and First of all, I recognize the source of these arguments, but I just can't begin to understand why in the world this particular individual has to Why address these issues with with acid in your pen?

Why be so nasty? I don't understand and sadly in in a couple of comments that have gone back and forth afterwards. It doesn't seem that he recognizes that closing his article with with with these words just and they're the ones I put on the blog.

But the theological and biblical ramifications on these subjects are quite profound. Whites warped thinking warps biblical passages and such flawed and fanciful reasoning soon affects behavior and attitude.

We should be fair with the plain testimony of scripture as well as fair to our opponents. White lacks both of these Christlike Qualities in his post today thus his eisegesis is seen now. There's a bunch of problems there to be perfectly honest with you.

I mean even you know That would not prove eisegesis one way or the other but the point is White lacks both of these Christlike qualities. I mean It is very frustrating for me given the fact that I see people utilizing horrible forms of argumentation Against cults and isms and things like that that I refuse to use.

I won't do it I mean some of my books on Mormonism have not been in print as long as others and the reason was I refused to use Sensationalism. I bend over backwards to be accurate and so to have someone who to my knowledge has has never tried to To dialogue with me or didn't send this to me and say what do you think about this before him to have someone?

You know take a swipe like that without any foundation, especially since they missed so much what I was saying in the first place. It was just like why what? The internet has has really given a platform For people just simply to make themselves look silly because they won't think about what they say.

I mentioned in channel that the internet gives us the opportunity of expressing our stupid impulses far too quickly. It used to be you actually had to have an editor, you know read things who would come back to you and go.

You know, do you really want to say that? Do you really want to you know, make that kind of an assertion and so on so forth and and so. It was it was very frustrating that that primarily this person doesn't seem to recognize His own lack of Being fair and and just simply attacking people and his use of ad hominem.

He doesn't see it to be ad hominem for some odd reason, but just a couple things. This particular individual is promoting a particular view of the atonement that Misunderstands first of all what I was saying he keeps assuming that when I talk about for example People who want an atonement that doesn't atone that I'm talking about him.

I wasn't anybody can read the context. Who am I talking about? Who am I talking about the program today? Dr. Davis who who who am I playing here in just a few moments. Dave Hunt? And Those are people that I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the people who want to promote a universal atonement that actually atones for nobody and has no purpose in its atonement. And so first of all ignores that as if somehow I'm I'm writing this to to Emeraldians or or people who have slightly different viewpoints in regards to issues on on the subject atonement.

And of course, I'm not doing it then. For example, he says in this first statement whites reactionary mentality is quickly seen in other words I'm responding to a particular perspective and since I'm not responding to his that makes me a reactionary person.

He describes the positions that differ from his own Actions described in one position as positing a hypothetical Savior. What's the alternative an actual Savior? So Who were actually saved when Christ died?

We're all the elect saved when Christ died of so then we have salvation or justification prior to faith now immediately I stop and I go excuse me, but I've dialogued dr. Spence and I had a dialogue on this last year and and it ended with a ball in my court.

I've I've mentioned many times this program. I have a whole list of subjects I want to get back to. I want to respond to Jimmy Aiken the priesthood. I want to finish that Discussion atonement with Eric Spence and but folks I would just ask you look at any active apologist today.

Look at my debate stage the schedule for this year and tell me anybody who is doing more than I'm doing. I Don't see anybody doing what I'm doing. We're very very busy. We're moving our offices there's just not enough time to get it all done and so I've addressed this before if anyone would read my books.

They know that I've addressed this issue and that I've addressed the ordo salutis both logically and temporally. It's just very frustrating when I put one paragraph up for a memory verse. Well, I'll go after this.

Why don't you go after something worthwhile Tony? Why don't you? Why don't you go after something, you know, that's got some depth to it, you know. Like maybe a book, you know, like the book on justification or something.

How about that do you know something? It's at least a couple pages long rather than a single paragraph. You know, he later on, you know talks about eternal justification. I've Rejected that I've written about that he very Condescendingly and and I would say very nastily at one point quotes from Hodge and questions.

Well, I've even read Hodge I had quoted that particular section in a book in 1990. I mean it just the number of things just absolutely make you just just want to scream and And basically suppose you see you just you're just not keeping the proper balance.

Which evidently he has between the prescribed and the decretal wills of God. Well, okay. Let's say I don't have Tony's exact view of These particular issues have I not discussed both of them? Have I not many times for example said that God commands all men everywhere to repent?

And that there is a prescriptive will of God and that it is very clear that we are to operate on the basis of that and not on the on the Basis of what we assume to be the decree of God, which we can't know.

How many times have I said that? I've said it over and over and over again. Does Tony care doesn't doesn't seem to. Because he doesn't know anything about me. He doesn't know me doesn't know my teaching and doesn't seem to care to find out.

That's why I contrasted in a comment on his blog I would I think it'd be very helpful to folks if you would look at this article and I've been noticing that the hit counter On his it's like he can be very very thankful That that I've lent him readers because it was around I think 4450 this morning.

There's been a hundred and sixteen hits in the past eleven minutes. It's up to 51 16. I'm sure that it'll be an all-time record for him today because I linked to him. You're you're welcome Tony for that help, but I would I would Invite you to look at this kind of Rhetoric that he throws out here attacking my character questioning my integrity questioning My my reading my my understanding all the rest of stuff without any references, of course to any of my published works and compare that with when I Responded to dr. Mark Seyfried Started a huge explosion, but it was for the same Reason as we've got this thing going on here.

I never attacked. Dr. Seyfried's character I never had to say he lacked Christ like characteristics. I did not have to question whether dr. Seyfried Had read Charles Hodge. I did not have to use these little Insults to get my point across you just that shows a tremendous disrespect to the Word of God.

It shows it's tremendous disrespect knowledge of the person, but let's leave the person out. It leaves it shows a tremendous disrespect to the Word of God and to theology itself. There's not a whole lot of respect being shown for the theology the way it's being handled within the blogosphere today.

Let's just let's just face it. Theological issues like Here that the will of God are being treated like the current Political firestorm in the blogosphere a lot of people carry the exact same kind of attitude from one to the other and that shouldn't be it just shouldn't be and so I've mentioned a number of these things one of them just absolutely blew me away was while trying Improperly and and just simply without any Basis to say that I Collapse the prescriptive will into the decretal will.

He quotes for me when I when I mention The Lord Jesus Christ doing the will of the Father Here it is. Dr. White is actually similar to the Arminians in his reactionary rationalistic Which is misspelled and lopsided thingy by the way I keep saying that because I have a rule if you're gonna insult somebody at least spell your insults correctly, okay?

I mean, I think that's just the least you can do if you're gonna insult somebody. Run spellcheck, okay, you know something along those lines. Anyways, dr. White is actually similar to the Arminians in his reactionary rash irrationalistic and lopsided thinking.

Each party posits a rationalistic false dilemma ie either the revealed will or the decreed will. Dr White goes with the decretal as the real will and thus says the Savior perfectly does the will. And then parentheses he identifies will with the decree parentheses close of the Father.

Actually, Tony. I was quoting John 6 38 through 39. So was John doing that? Maybe maybe somehow, you know, you know John's thought life as well there's a bunch of stuff in here that seemed to indicate that this man somehow knows what I think and He doesn't because I don't know this man, and he does not know me.

And I would appreciate if he wouldn't act as if he does because he doesn't. And if you don't recognize John 6 38 to 39. Because you've been spending so much time reading, you know Australian theologians or something like that.

That's a really really bad thing. So it was sad to read it. What a waste there is so Much that needs to be done out there people people like this who has seemingly have so much time on their hands. Why aren't they the ones that are doing research into people like Shabir Ali?

Why aren't they writing responses to him? Why aren't they dealing with Islam and the rise of Islam? Why aren't they going after the why are they going after me? I don't understand it. It just It's a Discernment is gone.

It's just it's just gone. There's it's it's it's a sad sad thing to say if you want something to even sadder I was directed to this we're gonna go. I'm gonna try to hit this fairly quickly move right into the Davis sermon Dave hunts back at it again, and I Almost hesitate to even play this.

I really do I Don't even know if I'm gonna play the whole thing in seven minutes long and we've heard all this before but is just Over and over and over again. The man will not accept correction. He just keeps repeating the same Exploded myths over and over and over and I just don't understand that.

I don't see how And And I'm almost one of the only people Who will dare to say anything like this about him Because he's got his card see you you see that it is almost within the quote-unquote apologetic community amongst evangelicals Especially or non-reformed people you don't criticize people like Dave hunt.

They've earned The right to say what they want to say, even if it is completely and totally wrong. I Mean there are some certain people who've come after me over the past couple years and the only reason they've done it There's only one reason You're they or someone they're related to is on Dave hunts board.

Oh You don't think there's politics in the countercult ministries. Why do you think we don't even get we don't even get up get involved with that kind of stuff? Because we just just don't even want it I don't I don't want the politics I don't want to have to worry about who says what to whom I Just I don't don't even want to go there.

I just It's not even worth it. So anyways Yeah, no, I've got Got too much to okay. Let's uh, let's try to listen to at least part of it what I wanted There's a caller who has it has a question visions one three and It's asking Dave hunt to deal with Ephesians one.

I think you've read debating Calvinism. You know that I Couldn't get him to deal with Ephesians one either.

So, let's see what happens in this regular feature. Dave and Tom respond to questions from listeners and readers of the Berean call. Here's this week's question. Dear Dave and Tom. I recently read a verse in Ephesians that seems to support the views I've heard from some of my Calvinist friends.

I don't consider myself a five-point Calvinist. Although I tend to agree with them on the fifth point perseverance of the Saints related to eternal security. How do you understand God choosing us as it is stated in Ephesians chapter 1?

Verses 3 through 7. Dave now. All I'm gonna do in this segment here is just read the verse because I don't want to get involved here because I know if I do I'm gonna get letters and. They're usually you know from our Calvinist friends out there.

They're usually 17 pages or more. Okay, so to avoid that.

17 pages or more. Remember the Calvinist control the entire book publishing industry too, and you'll never have a book published again if the Calvinists come after you. Tom. For those who haven't heard this before I've played Dave hunt speaking about how I and the Calvinist control the the publishing industry and we kill loyal publishing.

Yeah, okay, I'm just gonna read the scripture, and I'm gonna let you get all the mail, okay, you don't mind that do you. Oh, that's fine, Tom. Blessed be. This is Ephesians chapter 1 and pick up with verse 3.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Who have blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ? According as he hath chosen. I think these are this is an important one.

He hath chosen us in him in him for the foundation of the world or yes. There's a we should be holy and without blame, but it was all in love. Having predestinated us assume. That's another one. Yep. They're concerned about.

Oh, yeah having predestinated us unto the adoption. Adoption is another key phrase the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself. According to the good pleasure Of his will we've heard that before and not according to what they do the praise of the glory of his grace wherein he hath made Us accepted in the Beloved that's in Christ in whom we have redemption through his blood only in him the forgiveness of sin.

That's the elect. Yep according to the riches of his grace. There you go. Thank you Dave.

Well now there you go these are chapter 1. Let's listen to the in-depth exegetical handling.

Provided by David. We don't have time to deal with the word chosen even in John 6 Jesus says have not I chosen you 12 and one of you is a devil so everybody that is chosen does not. It doesn't work out Dave the Israelites chosen people and not all of them right now.

I'm gonna be with the Lord forever.

Hey I haven't heard the exegesis yet. I don't think that that passage is contextually parallel to Ephesians 1. No one says that chosen means the same thing in every single context. Or at least they shouldn't unless you're one of those folks.

It just does a you know Strong's Exhaustive Concordance means of exegesis or something like that.

So not really sure what that had to do with anything here in Ephesians chapter 1. He's talking about real believers. Predestinated unto the adoption of children according to his good pleasure. See we could be saved Tom without becoming the children of God.

Now to catch that we could be saved without becoming the children of God now. He's mentioned that before. He's gonna explain here a little bit later on. What he's saying is Adoptionist children is a blessing beyond salvation.

I I've it's always struck me That what he was actually saying is you can be a Christian without being adopted. I Think he tries to modify that here.

Let's let's let's let him say so all these things is talking about. Can you explain that balance? I'm not sure I got that. No, what's what is the issue? The issue is we've broken God's law. We've rebelled against him now.

He could forgive us. That doesn't make us his children. Are you following me? Well, I thought if we're if we're saved if we're born again, aren't we? We got a misunderstanding going here. Of course. We are the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

But God didn't have to make us his children in order to forgive us. That's all I'm saying. I get you right now.

Okay, but what does that have to do with anything in? Ephesians 1. We've gone we've gone two minutes now and so far there is nothing. About the background. Ephesians 1 the flow of the text the meaning of the words.

There's no exegesis here. I.

But it gets worse. He could have say this without you know. We're still nice people in the garden or something. But he wanted to make us his children adopt us into his family. So when you have predestination or choosing election and so forth It's always unto some blessing not unto salvation.

Now there stop it right there stop right there. He has made the statement for years.

In Debating Calvinism, I quoted his statement and Then I cited 2nd Thessalonians 2 13 We should always give thanks to God for you brother and beloved by the Lord. Because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith and the truth and Then I pointed out never was this text cited in all of what love is this.

Not once. Now who wrote the rebuttal to that? Because in the rebuttal it's like well, you know, it doesn't really matter. There's all these other verses, but how can he keep saying? Chosen predestined is never to salvation when 2nd Thessalonians 2 13 says chosen you from the beginning for salvation.

How can you keep saying that? It's wrong. It's a lie. It's a falsehood. You've been informed of this unless you didn't write debating Calvinism and whoever did write debating Calvinism didn't bother to tell you this Dave.

It's wrong. It's a lie. Stop cease desist. I mean, what's the difference between misrepresenting? This is if it's not there and misrepresenting something like the deity of Christ or the resurrection or something.

Is that are those somehow more important than then 2nd Thessalonians 2 13? How? How does he get away with this? Why aren't there board members coming up to him and going cease and desist and stop misrepresenting the Bible?

It says it right here deal with it. He's been corrected, but he just keeps repeating the same things. Honestly, I don't know if if you took what he's saying today and Took it back to that first encounter.

We had on on Kpxq and you just played segments side-by-side. Could most people even tell the difference over those years remember. That's the one he started off saying I've never read the Reformers.

Could anyone really tell the difference? I don't know if they could for example.

Romans chapter 8. Those whom he foreknew he Predestined to be conformed to the image of his son. He didn't have to make us nothing about. Think about this just for a moment.

This man is actually saying you can be predestined to the image of his son, but that has nothing to do with salvation. Think about that for a moment.

Amazing. How can? Why Jesus. So predestination is always according to foreknowledge First Peter chapter 1 he lacked according to the foreknowledge.

And of course, we know how many times has Dave Hunt been challenged on the difference between for no verb and for knowledge now. Over and over again now. Do you see why Dave Hunt won't debate this issue now?

Do you see why he's hiding why he's afraid to debate this issue? Because he could not answer a challenge on this and therefore his position collapses. He'd have to answer second Thessalonians 2 13 he can't.

He'd have to answer the difference between for knowledge or no. He can't. He'd have to answer for his mistakes in Acts 13 48. He can't Hebrew originals. He can't coin the New World Translation. He can't first John 5 1.

He can't. I mean the list goes on and on and on and on and on and he knows that. And If he knows that there's only one response that any Christian should have and that is I repent of my errors. I've been wrong about these things and you know, then you go off.

Oh just logically.

Why does for knowledge even have to enter into it. Because it's talking about those that God knew would be saved. Which is not just picking some people to go to heaven and some people to go to hell. Foreknowledge has has nothing to do with it.

Man if real problem chooses some for salvation and some for hell.

And there's nothing you can do about it. And there's nothing you can do about it. Again. The same error. We're gonna see in in Davis. Nothing you can do about. You're just this poor innocent person. I mean, you're not really a rebel sinner.

And God wouldn't be just to bring his judgment against all of humanity. Well, actually he does say that but but then he doesn't you know live in light of what he says and this is all.

Everything works according to his will. Then why did Jesus say that we should pray thy will be done?

Now why why would Jesus do that? It's not like no one's ever answered this for Dave, but he won't listen or accept what we have to say. I Any of the stuff that's under his name he's got a ghostwriter someplace and Everything I wrote just went right past him and he never saw it.

And so he's just repeating what he's said all along or He's desperately dishonest one of the two. It's like only two choices. Can anyone suggest a choice other than that? I can't think of one. How many times has been he been answering this how many times have we discussed the issue of?

Prayer and why why should he pray if God's already doing everything he can it's all up to mankind. You should be praying to man not to God. We pray to be put in line with God's will we pray to be changed.

We pray out of obedience to God. We pray because the Holy Spirit drives us to do so not to try to change God. Well, anyways, I can't stand much. I can't say more. There's more of it. But I just yeah, it's just it's.

It's just so sad to see somebody who has been corrected over and over and over and over and over again. Absolutely, just repeating every possible error again and again and again again, it's it's just sad.

The Meaning of Limited Atonement and the Nature of the Atonement

So anyway, let's go back with. At least someone that's uh, I can't prove has been corrected. Dr. Davis and his sermon why he's not a five-point Calvinist is to two sermons we're about let me see here 11 minutes and 28 seconds into the first one and He's defining the five points of Calvinism here.

Recall we got through the T and the you Last time and now we're picking up with the dreaded terrible horrible L. The L into look stands for limited atonement. Meaning that the atonement for sin. That Jesus accomplished on the cross was limited to only those God Elected to save and is not and cannot be effective for anyone else.

That the Elected Jesus died for them, but he died for no one else. The atonement was limited to just those he chooses to say now not a thousand percent in error. But certainly not something that any of us would want to say.

Well, here isn't here is an excellent example of what the doctor limits atonement is. Because of course we know that everyone in some way shape or form limits the atonement outside of universalists. The question is.

The real issues that need to be brought up even as we saw in the article attacking me this morning was can we address issues of intention and Result in regards to the work of Christ. What is the nature of?

Substitution was the nature of the union of the elect of God with Christ in regards to his Sacrificial death issues like that now, of course Dr. Davis is not a universalist and that would mean that he limits the effect of the atonement because he would affirm the substitutionary atonement of Christ in behalf of every single individual human being.

But he would limit the effect that it does not make salvation a certainty it does not mean that there will come a time in the experience of every single individual when they will experience the salvation and in fact it does raise the issue of double jeopardy the fact that the wrath of God has been poured upon Christ and That very same wrath will be experienced by the person in hell the same sins in essence punished twice in behalf of Those particular individuals and he will affirm later on.

I believe I did put this in one of the clips that God does know the future without any question. He's not an open theist. And so God knew that person X was going to die in their sins and yet knowing the person X was going to die in their Sins and that there is no possibility.

He was not going to die in his sins. Rejecting Christ. Let's say knowingly rejecting Christ yet despite all of that Despite those facts God the Father placed the sins of that person Upon Jesus Christ and made him suffer for those sins to no end knowing completely That there would be no redemption as a result of that that becomes the result now.

Has dr Davis ever had any anyone point that out to him? I don't know. I don't know. I Have no way of knowing but I'm putting it out now and I would like to think that he would at least give consideration to do that kind of stuff.

Dr. James Crumpton told how a preacher friend of his began preaching that Jesus blood wasn't shed for everybody and then a friend said to him. But so-and-so, you know that you're the elect and that the blood was shed for you.

But how are you going to ever prove to your little daughter that the blood was shed for her also? Can you prove to her that she is one of the elect now? There's an excellent example from my perspective of the fact that the vast majority of Objections to limited atonement are actually on the part of most people especially Those holding to this type of inconsistent Viewpoint that's dr. Davis holds to because he's gonna hold to a form of the P as we will see later on a form of you know evangelistic Eternal security Clearly does not understand what the reform position is that but anyway, we'll get that at a moment.

That the vast majority of their objections are not to the subject of limited atonement. They are to the subject of unconditional election. And that's why when I meet a lot of people who call themselves four-point Calvinist most of the time I just start with the assumption unless they immediately start quoting Amaraldian arguments to me I'm I'm going to assume that I'm actually talking to maybe a one-point a four-point Armenian really.

The vast majority of folks who call themselves Four-pointers are not because when you start listening to why they don't accept particular redemption. They're actually arguing against unconditional election and they actually believe in free will and so once you get rid of unconditional election and total depravity you're certain I can believe in irresistible grace and now you're a Four-point Armenian at that particular point in time.

So That that's a very very common error that is that is made at that particular point in time you're arguing about. You know, how can you know your little daughters of the elect? Well again, no one is claiming that we know who the elect are.

That's one of the errors in regards to that earlier article that I was referring to. We don't have that knowledge concerning who the elect are. We can't function on that we can only function upon the prescriptive will of God what he's revealed in his word were to preach the gospel to all people and to sit around wringing our hands and and and.

You know playing one string on our banjo and and just just focusing upon this one little thing and trying to figure out well. You know, well, what if a person isn't elect then what's God's attitude here?

And and what about this on? It's ridiculous just do what the Word of God commands you to do. We're to proclaim the gospel to all people we accept what the Word of God has to say. You go on from there so anyways now.

Here the next one is what happens when you don't read Charles Haddon Spurgeon for yourself and you follow Dave Hunt. You follow him right over the cliff. Now this is the one this third point is the one of the four points with which many Calvinistic preachers Such as Charles Spurgeon disagreed.

Well as we all know that's not true. We have if you go back in the archives, you will even find a Dividing line. I forget how many years ago. It was now some some time before or after the year 2000 where I Read the entirety of Spurgeon one of Spurgeon's sermons just one of the Spurgeon's sermons where he specifically lays out and defends the particular redeeming work of Christ and The quotation in Hunt's book.

Hunt knows it's wrong. He refuses to accept his error. It refuses to admit his error all he's managed to do. Because a lot of people have really pointed this out to me. You couldn't be any more wrong than he then he most clearly is all he's done in essence is to Say well first he said Spurgeon unequivocally Now was unequivocally without contradiction without qualification unequivocally Denied the doctrine limited to atonement in reality.

He was quoting from a sermon where Spurgeon identified that doctrine as Christian doctrine. In fact in describing the concept of universal redemption said you can have your atonement. I don't want it.

It's the exact opposite. He was 100 a degrees wrong. Couldn't be any wronger. Okay, I know runners over and So now what he says in the current edition of his book and he's got another edition to try to take out all the silliness about original Hebrew.