March 16, 2004

Around the world, from the desert metropolis of 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 at 602 -973 -4602, or toll free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. We had some coffees last night of a debate.

I did a debate here in town and saying that he had challenged me to a debate and that I wasn't willing to do it.

Not true. I did a debate with him in book form.

I had spoken in Springfield, Illinois, just a few months earlier and I had mentioned at the request of the church itself that I had been discussing the subject of Calvinism.

I addressed issues regarding Calvinism. Not just that, however. I addressed other issues as well.

And so one of the things I mentioned was, of course, the fact that Dave Hunt would not engage in a public debate.

Now, we had some problems with the audio at the beginning. Let me try playing that again so maybe you can make out what was being said.

It sounded a whole lot better when I played it before. I don't know why it sounds as badly as it does now, but maybe we've got it adjusted now so we might be able to understand it.

Let's try it one more time. And saying that he had challenged me to a debate and that I wasn't willing to do it.

Not true. I did a debate with him in book form.

That sounded a whole lot better. He mentioned me by names that I had been going around saying that he would not debate me.

Well, of course he won't. And context is evidently something that Dave struggles with a lot.

And whether it's in scripture or in what someone else is saying, because obviously what I'm referring to,

I wasn't denying the existence of the book. I wasn't denying the existence of a book called Debating Calphanism.

But obviously, as I've mentioned many times before, Mr. Hunt had agreed in the past to debate me publicly and I have wanted to include that public debate along with the book as a rather fully orbed discussion of the issue.

But instead he says it's not true. Well, actually what I said was true in the context in which

I stated it, obviously. Now, Mr. Hunt went through a number of other things. He talked a lot about the

Debating Calvinism book and stuff that, to be honest with you, I did not know about.

I guess there was a time when the book was in danger of not being published.

That the publisher did not like the tone of the book. And that in fact there were questions concerning some of the statements.

In fact, the material was run by attorneys and they sort of flagged things that they felt might trigger bad responses legally.

None of my materials did that because anyone who has read the book knows I'm just simply dealing with the exegesis and dealing with Mr.

Hunt. I'm not going after all sorts of other folks. You won't find me sitting there taking shots at Arminians in various positions of leadership.

And so my materials didn't click on any of that. But his did.

And I was unaware of that. I was not informed of any of this until I inquired about it. Some of the comments, and he's making these public comments.

He's going around saying these things. Evidently are the basis of what various and sundry people are saying on certain web boards.

You see on my blog people saying that I convinced Multnomah not to publish Dave Hunt's book and all the rest of this silliness.

I'm only discovering all this stuff second hand. It's not like Multnomah could really care less what I think about anything. Anyway, he talks a little bit about that.

I've got a couple more clips here. Let's listen to what he says about that. That almost didn't get published. Okay, let's start that one over again.

Here we go. That almost didn't get published. At the last minute I got 15 pages from the publisher that they wanted me to cut out.

I said, gentlemen, this is a debate. You don't enter the debate.

Helping me? Well then he'll be upset. Why don't you help him? The Lord is very gracious.

I often say to people I could prove the existence of God by who he sits next to on airplanes.

Generally it's a non -Christian. Well, the Lord sat me next to a man from Portland to Chicago today on his way to Israel.

Way to Israel for what? For a board meeting. He's an Israeli. He's a very wealthy man.

But anyway, because I said, well, okay,

I mean, I can't fight you. Can't fight City Hall. Because if you don't publish this book, it will never be published.

Because James White will not want this in print. And he and I would have to agree on a new publisher.

So I'm actually listening. So the next day, the Lord sat me next to the owner of...

Anyway, and the Lord worked some things out. So that book, we have some copies of that.

So there you have the assertion. This book almost did not get into publication, he said.

And that he sat next to the owner of Multnomah and educated him on Calvinism.

I would love to have heard that particular conversation, wouldn't you? I think that would have been very, very interesting.

But did you catch the assertion? The amazing assertion made by Dave Hunt, that if Multnomah did not publish this, then it was not going to get published.

Why? Because I didn't want to see this book in print. Let me play that section for you again, so that you can actually hear that being said.

Because if you don't publish this book, it will never be published. Because James White will not want this in print.

James White will not want this in print. Why? We are selling the book.

And I'm very happy with the response to the book. I mean, let's face it. I'll be straightforward here.

The response to the book from thinking people has been, that wasn't a debate. The response from thinking individuals has been, that wasn't fair.

It's exactly what I told the publisher, this was Loyal Publishing, when

I was first contacted to do this particular debate. I said, look, you're going to take a lot of heat for this.

You're going to take heat for this, because Dave Hunt cannot stay on one subject. You're going to take heat for this, because Dave Hunt cannot do exegesis.

You're going to take heat for this, because Dave Hunt is not a theologian. He's going to say a lot of silly things.

He's going to get caught making a lot of errors, and he's just going to have to duck them. And you're going to take heat for all this.

And they said, fine, that's wonderful. That's all to your advantage. And of course, that publisher then sold the project to Multnomah when

Loyal was bought up. We'll hear later on that Mr. Hunt says that that is all due to us

Calvinists. We Calvinists are the terrible, horrible, nasty folks. We control everything.

We've got a conspiracy going here. And evidently, Mr. Hunt's family has fans like conspiracies.

And so there's a conspiracy going on to get Dave, and all the Calvinists are behind it. And we're going to hear more about that.

But anyway, I told them all these things. And the people, you go and you listen to folks who have taken the time to look at the book and examined the argumentation from any type of rational perspective.

And you discover that the vast majority of them are saying this was not much of a discussion. Because one side presents an exegetical case.

The other side wanders all over the planet. Refuses to answer direct questions. And as I mentioned on the log, just this past week,

I happened to read one of his closing statements in which he thought that my ex -Jesus of Matthew 23 -37, where I point out that Jesus in Matthew 23 -37 is talking about when he says, how often would

I have gathered your children under my wings, but you would not. I pointed out this is not a verse you can use to try to undo the irresistible grace of God.

This has nothing to do with it at all. This is a condemnation of the Jewish leaders. The Jewish leaders, those in control in Jerusalem, those

Pharisees and scribes who were being absolutely ravaged in Matthew 23 for their hypocrisy.

This is a condemnation of them. And it is referring to the people of Jerusalem over against their leaders.

He actually understood me to believe in my ex -Jesus. This shows how little he's actually read or understood of what

I've written. That I was talking about children. That I was actually talking about non -adults.

Little kids. As if Jesus were attempting to set up the Jerusalem Vacation Bible School. That is how absolutely disconnected with anything

Mr. Hunt has been on this project. That is what people have been saying.

They see this. They recognize this. They see that it's a very one -sided affair.

And that hence the only real meaning to the work is the fact that it gives you the answers. How do you respond to these kinds of standard evangelical arguments?

And if you have a Dave Hunt fan in your family, how do you respond to a Dave Hunt fan in essence? To say that I didn't want this in print.

Obviously from his perspective he thinks he just ran me over like a freight train in this particular debate.

We obviously believe the same thing about each one. I just leave it up to you all to find out which one is which.

Read for yourself. Go to the text and find out which one is which. It is truly amazing to see that.

Let's play another clip here. Also regards this issue of the debate. And then we'll jump back over to Matthew 23 37 for just a second as well.

Here's John Piper. What made me think of that was they didn't want me to quote John Piper in the debate.

I'm only quoting him. That's what I say all over the world. I'm only quoting people.

They said it. I didn't say it. Don't blame me for quoting them. If that's what they said and that's what they believe, they ought to be happy I'm giving broader distribution to what they said.

I don't know why people get upset because I quote someone. But one of the people they didn't want me to quote

John Piper, he seemed to be a special favorite of theirs. This is what John Piper writes.

Now, most of you know that John Piper is a...

Actually, he's a Crossway author. And the whole idea that is being promoted here by Mr.

Hunt is that there's this great conspiracy and see, John Piper's a Calvinist and therefore we don't want to offend

Calvinists. We'll hear more of this as we go on. Listening to these tapes, I didn't listen to all of them.

I listened to two hours worth of them. That was all I could take. Literally, the folks in channel last night will tell you, I even said

I'm getting a headache listening to this. I think part of it was the quality's not all that good as you can tell, but most of it is just...

You would think, you would think, that by now, now remember, this is only, this is after the book comes out.

This was just a few weeks ago. We would have had these earlier, but we had a lot of trouble getting hold of tapes. By now, if there is any integrity, and that's the term

I'm going to use, if there is any integrity in Dave Hunt's attack upon Calvinism, if this is anything more than just simply an emotional, vitriolic, traditional attack, if there is anything more to it, now we'd start to see it.

I mean, we had the first discussion long ago now on KPXQ radio, between Dave Hunt and myself, and we have had the opportunity of interacting in letters.

We have done the book. We have gone back and forth between all these rounds in the book.

I have responded to many things that he said. I have actually met with Mr.

Hunt briefly within the past number of months. And after all of this, if there is any essence, if there is any integrity, if there is any meat to what

Mr. Hunt is saying, by now we should start seeing the development of his arguments.

We should start seeing that he's been listening to what's being said. He understands what's being said, and he begins to make his arguments more cogent, and more accurate, and more truthful in light of this tremendous amount of study that he has done in regards to the subject of Calvinism.

But that is not what we hear, unfortunately. For example, what started all this?

Well, there was a miscitation of Matthew 23, 37 in Mr.

Hunt's newsletter back in May of, was it 2001? I think it was May of 2001.

And I've gone over this. I've sent him tapes where I've gone over this.

I've gone over it in letters. I went over it in the book. Matthew 23, 37.

How is Dave Hunt now dealing with Matthew 23, 37? I mean, to be honest, and to show integrity, how would he have?

He would have to be dealing with the distinction from the context itself between the scribes and Pharisees, Sadducees, Jewish leaders, and those they had control over, leadership over.

He'd have to discuss the difference between you and your children. And he would have to do so in such a way as to defend his exegesis, right?

Well, let's listen to Dave Hunt answering a question just a few weeks ago, less than a month ago, about three weeks ago, this past Sunday at a

Brethren church in Springfield, Illinois on Matthew 23, 37. Well, Jesus says, how often would

I? Remember? That's interesting. That is a claim to deity because the

New Testament only records this once that he wept over Jerusalem. And he says he did it often.

When did he do it often? He's Yahweh. He's the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who wept over his people often, pleaded, pleaded, so it's a claim to deity.

And what does it mean? I would, but you would not. Well, it's pretty clear.

He wants them to be saved. He wants to forgive them. Why aren't they? Because they rejected.

And we have that all through the Old Testament. With honey out of the rock,

I would have satisfied you, but my people would have none of me. So this is all through the

Bible. God's desire, God's passion. And if we say, well, but Christ, how could he be weeping over people for whom

Christ didn't die? Well, there it is.

There it is. Not even the slightest hint or indication of a concern to deal with the text and the issues in the text that have been raised to him.

Not one word. Nothing. No indication whatsoever that there has even been the first bit of concern about this.

If you have the book, you probably are aware of the fact that on page, if you've got the book, a bunch of you do, if you look on page 110, page 110,

I wrote the following words. Hunt repeatedly asserts that election is never unto salvation, but only to privileges and blessings.

This assertion is repeated in his book, and in talks he has given over the past few years. Yet amazingly, despite its obvious centrality to the entirety of his position,

Mr. Hunt does not provide an explanation of this text, and I quote 2 Thessalonians 2 .13,

which says we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the

Spirit and faith in the truth. Then I said, Paul speaks of God choosing the believers of Thessalonica from the beginning for salvation.

There is a direct refutation of a claim Hunt makes repeatedly. The text shows the work of the Spirit and our faith in God's truth are the result of that eternal choice.

God ordains both the ends and the means, just as we've formed theology as taught all along. No reference is found to 2

Thessalonians 2 .13 in the scripture index of what love is this. Well, here's a verse

Hunt repeatedly says election, predestination, is never to salvation it's only to blessings.

And I've heard him make that statement many times, it's found in what love is this. Well, when he responds, page 1 .13

of the book, he says this very first paragraph

I show that Paul does not say that every evil event on earth is willed by God but is allowed in the counsel of his will a huge difference.

I deal with 2 Thessalonians 2 .13 elsewhere. That's all he says. Well, where would that be?

Well, one of the problems of this book is there's no scripture index but there is now. If you go to our website, you will find a scripture index.

Thank you Mark Ennis to debating Calvinism. I posted it last evening and there is a link off of my blog for that and I forgot to link it off the

Reformed Theology page. I'll try to remember to do that but anyway, and if you look up our handy dandy scripture index there are only two other references to 2

Thessalonians 2 .13 in the book. Page 370 of the book has a brief discussion of this.

Page 370 and here is Dave Hunt saying

Yes, Paul tells the Thessalonians God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the spirit and believe the truth.

2 Thessalonians 2 .13 The meaning of from the beginning is the question. Paul uses this expression three other times.

Who knew me from the beginning. Acts 26 .5 From the beginning of the world. Ephesians 3 .9 And in the beginning of the gospel.

Philippians 4 .15 None of these expressions is related to predestination from eternity past.

The beginning of the gospel is associated with Macedonia perhaps because Paul received a unique call to that region and a vision of man saying come over into Macedonia and help us.

Acts 16 .9 Thus from the beginning of the gospel in Macedonia the Thessalonians as part of that region were chosen to hear it.

Yet their salvation came only by belief of the truth, not by Calvinism's regeneration before believing the gospel.

Now there is the only attempt he makes to respond to it. It is again a classic example of scripture twisting and eisegesis.

It really rivals anything the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons do in just completely ignoring any meaningful methodology of interpreting the

Bible. First of all the phrase from the beginning needs to be interpreted within the context in which it is found.

What's more is if he had bothered to look a little bit more closely at what was found in the text itself he would discover that in reality there is a textual variant there which

I have addressed elsewhere. In fact as I recall if I'm recalling correctly I addressed that in the

Potter's Freedom. But there is a textual variant at that particular passage that impacts the specific way in which you would interpret what is said there because it can be as first fruits rather than from the beginning.

But that's not the point. The point is that the very assertion he constantly makes that this choosing, this election, this personation is never into salvation is into salvation here.

And so when he gets around to doing this he just simply connects from the beginning to completely separate contexts that have nothing to do with this passage.

Assumes the connection with Acts chapter 16 verse 9 and then completely flies off into some utterly disconnected response by saying the

Thessalonians as part of that region were chosen to hear it. It doesn't say chosen to hear it. It says chosen to salvation. Their salvation came only by belief of the truth not by Calvinism's regeneration before believing the gospel.

Well you may not like that but that has nothing to do with the text itself. The point is that they were chosen to believe.

They were chosen for salvation. Just deal with the text. He doesn't deal with the text. There's only one place it appears and that's on page 424 which is right at the very end of the book.

In fact that's two pages from the end of the book. Page 424 and there it's just run by very very quickly.

White relies on a few passages of arguable interpretation. Well of course anything is arguable to Mr.

Hunt. His strongest case that God predestined only in elect salvation comes from Acts 13 48 and 2

Thessalonians 2 13. Okay are we ready for the Huntian response to any exegetical presentation?

Here it is. Yet his interpretation does not fit God's character as so clearly established throughout all of scripture.

Hundreds of scriptures I have cited scores of them declare in the clearest terms that God loves and desires the salvation of all.

Some of these White explains away by interpreting world as elect and all men as classes of men. Whoever suffers a similar fate along with God's love but dozens of scriptures to which

I called his attention won't allow such mishandling so he neither respond to them in this debate nor refer to them in the potter's freedom.

In other words I don't have a clue. I have no way of interacting with these.

I can't do exegesis so I'm just going to simply say well it can't mean that because of all these hundreds of verses that in my tradition in my tradition mean x, y, or z and that's what everyone saw throughout.

Every time we would get to a specific passage, a specific argumentation, boom well it can't mean that because there are hundreds of verses well there's hundreds over here and so then when you start listing them and I start showing where he was wrong well okay it's really not important what that verse says because there's hundreds of verses and scores over here and it's just you know you cannot refute such a position for the obvious reason that there's no substance to it.

There's no substance to it. So after all of this you would think having written an entire book

What Love Is This? without ever mentioning saying this one is 2 .13 and then having given such a weak silly response as that that maybe

Mr. Hunt would learn that maybe he should stop using that phrase that election is never unto salvation it's only unto blessings well guess what we heard from Springfield, Illinois let's listen in There it is.

Let me just play that last section just so we hear it all again you see tradition cannot be refuted and when all you have is tradition you just have to keep going back and saying the same things over and over again and here's

Dave saying Predestined elections never unto salvation doesn't matter what 2

Thessalonians 2 .13 says we just ignore that and I figure most of the places I'm going to be speaking that no one is probably ever going to call me on that evidently that's that's what it means amazing, absolutely amazing well there's more here let's sneak this one in before we take a break a copy editor was a young man who was raised in a

Calvary chapel certainly not Calvinist and in fact he told me when

I saw there are so many books in Christian bookstores that offend

Calvinists it's not even funny as if this is relevant I mean wow

I guess again there's just a certain mindset there's just a certain mindset that wants conspiracy that wants to believe that there is a conspiracy that everyone's out to get you and so our copy editor he became a

Calvinist at Masters College and he fought me on every line he says Calvinists they don't want me to and he's actually said this these

Calvinists can't handle the truth and so they want to hide they want to suppress my work and we've all said from the beginning

Dave we've just been trying to help you man we've just been trying to help you we've been trying to help you not make a fool of yourself to not say things that are just simply ridiculous on the level of well the things that now you will be well known for having said we're just trying to assist you and he's not interested in that assistance.

We're going to go ahead and open the phone lines I've got more clips to play but in fact I've got 9, 10 actually 11 more here but hey we haven't taken phone calls now in a full week because last week we did the

Adrian Rogers response and so if you'd like to call 877 -753 -3341 we'll take your phone call 877 -753 -3341 we'll be right back music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music but they won't listen to what the other side is saying.

Maybe they won't ask questions. I don't know. Maybe that's just how it works. I don't know. So anyway, we're listening to some clips from Dave Hunt.

He spoke about three weeks ago in Springfield, Illinois. And we're taking your phone calls at 877 -753 -3341.

And I think we were supposed to have one call. I don't have a name or anything yet, but I have at least one call coming in and we'll take your phone calls as well.

But before we do that, let's go ahead and listen to another clip from Dave Hunt's discussion.

And you don't want to have a book in your bookstore that is offending them because their books sell a lot of copies.

You understand what I'm saying? That's why this book is out of print at the moment.

We will bring it back into print, God willing. Until I can find a secular publisher, hopefully, you can pray about that, who can't be intimidated by Calvinists.

A secular publisher who cannot be intimidated by Calvinists. Oh, God, I'm your father.

I'm sorry, but I just, oh, come on. Give me a break.

What love is this? Calvinists is out of print because it's a bad book. It's just simply a really bad book.

That's the only reason it's out of print. Oh, yeah, yep, the Calvinists are in control of everything.

It's the new trilateral commission. I'm sorry.

It just makes them a lot of money, you know? Excuse me, who's making the most money?

Who's making the money out there? It's Jerry Jenkins. It's the left behinds, the prayer of Jabez, the purpose -driven church.

And in case no one noticed, those are not Calvinistic works, hello. I'm sorry, but you listen to this stuff for that many hours and keep your mind going.

Let me just play one more and then we'll go ahead and take our first call. We continue on.

Reformed faith, what do you mean, Reformed faith? These are Reformed churches.

J. Adams says, I'm a Reformed Christian. He's referring to himself.

They hijacked the Reformation. John Calvin was eight years old when Calvinism is

Reformation. You get the New Geneva Study Bible, edited by,

Bill Packer was one of the editors, R .C. Sproul, another one. And they say, this is

Reformed faith. We are presenting Reformed faith. They call their churches Reformed churches.

He doesn't like the fact that we use the term Reformed churches as if we have hijacked the

Reformation. And he uses that phraseology in the book. I love the statement there. First of all, the one where we play right, just a few moments ago, about Calvinists coming out of the closet.

You know, my first book was called The Fatal Flaw from 1990. And anyone who could read that and not realize it is absolutely, completely

Calvinistic, I've, you know, I don't know. R .C.

Sproul has come out of the closet. I would love to sort of be in the background and listen and watch faces as people say this.

Then again, at one point, he asked how many people in the audience even knew what the five points of Calvinism were. And almost no one in the entire room did.

So they're all listening and going, wow, there's a lot of weird people out there. You know, they're just eating this stuff up. I have no idea how completely off the wall it is.

But I love this thing about, John Calvin was just this age, 15, 17, he was only eight years old. I mean, he was so, you know, you know, what do you mean it's

Calvinism? But you know, isn't it fascinating? Isn't it fascinating that just a few years later,

Martin Luther wrote a book that, well, I don't think Dave Hunt likes called The Bondage of the

Will, maybe? Maybe, you know, that's a book that Hunt likes to attack and say is he could drive a semi truck through the theological holes?

Amazing, absolutely amazing. 877 -753 -3341. Let's go ahead and talk to Scott.

Hi, Scott. How you doing? Doing good. Good, I got my book and I read the first two painful chapters and I'm going to take some

Advil and try to attack the rest of it. Would that be one of any number of my books or a specific one?

No, that would be debating Calvinism. And it wasn't you that is causing me the pain, it's Mr. Hunt.

And I have to applaud you for being a very tolerant and forgiving person that you didn't curse in the middle of your book.

Well, that's what editors are for anyways, but no, anyone in channel, because I would comment about stuff in channel,

I even posted sections and stuff and I would talk with folks and they'd give me feedback and anybody in channel can tell you that one of the things

I did say during the course of the writing of the book was that I just hoped that by the way

I responded to the assertions being made, that that would in and of itself be the most useful part of the book.

That I knew and realized that as far as it being, you know, the classic debate, well,

I can tell folks now, there's a new edition of the Steele and Thomas book, Five Points of Calvinism coming out, that's been reedited and there's a huge bibliography in it, annotated bibliography.

And the editor called me because I had gotten him in touch with Multnomah, they rushed him the manuscript of the book so he was able to read it and include it in the bibliography.

And he described the book, he said, debating Calvinism, Dave Hunt, James White, Multnomah, 2004.

This book grew out of James White's response to Dave Hunt's book, What Love Is This? in the form of an open letter. And then it says, there may, this may well be the single most lopsided debate in the history of the church.

That's what it says, so. Wow. Well, I actually wanted to switch gears for a second if I could.

Sure. I go to a church that is of the same denomination as Wilson and Schlissel and those guys.

And I haven't heard anything from our pastor or our elders about the whole Auburn Avenue thing.

But I'm wondering, from your perspective, what are some of the things I should be on the lookout for and what might be kind of a response if they do come up that I could offer?

You know, I'm getting a lot of questions about how I would summarize the Auburn Avenue movement, which now is really going under a new, more official name entitled

The Federal Vision or Federal Visionists. Now, realize that the

Auburn Avenue guys represent, Doug Wilson is CRE, which I'm assuming is what you're referring to.

Schlissel is not CRE. Barich is Christian Reformed, as I recall.

And the pastor down there, I think that's a PCA church, last I checked. So they actually come from a number of different denominations.

But it's Wilson, Lightheart and others that are really pushing the Federal Visionist concept along with Schlissel, even though trying to actually identify

Steve Schlissel's systematic theology is sort of like identifying Martin Luther's. They're very much alike in the sense that they're extremely passionate.

And when they address a subject, they address it very forcefully, but trying to systematize it is simply next to impossible.

So anyway, when people ask me, well, what makes it special, the Federal Vision?

In essence, it grows out of a pastoral concern initially as to how you deal with individuals who are concerned about assurance of salvation in light of the fact that as you stand before the people of God, if you understand the truth of biblical election and predestination, that you are always faced with the recognition that there are those who are sitting in front of you who may well not be in the elect.

And therefore, they believe that on a pastoral level, you should view the church through the lens of the covenant, the objective covenant created by baptism, rather than through the lens of election, that the

Puritans especially completely miss this, resulting in morbid introspection, people constantly examining themselves, examining the fruit of their life and their hearts and so on and so forth, and they're very, very opposed to that.

They believe that the essence of God's promise and the foundation of assurance is baptism, that baptism is

God's promise, baptism joins you to the covenant, and therefore the objectivity of the covenant is the watchword in the federal vision.

Now that leads to all sorts of other issues. They sort of felt like they were getting away from the problems of introspection and Puritanism, but in reality, they haven't done so.

And in fact, a book that's gonna be coming out hopefully fairly soon, I don't know who's publishing it, but there is gonna be a book coming out. It's available in PDF format right now, at least it was a few weeks ago.

In that book, it is a colloquium that took place at Knox Seminary, and it comes out pretty clearly in that particular book, the inconsistency and the fact that, look, if you actually believe in justification by faith, if you believe in election, you can't believe that baptism does the things that these people are saying baptism actually does.

So what I would be listening for is the emphasis upon the objectivity of the covenant based upon baptism, and that this baptism, they'll actually use, some of them have used terminology, it sounds like baptismal regeneration, a form of it, but trying to nail it down to a particular historical meaning is very, very difficult to do.

So the objectivity of the covenant and an unusual emphasis on baptism that possibly you haven't heard before would probably be the things you'd be looking for.

Okay. Well, that's good. I haven't heard a whole lot from our pastor. When we talked about assurance of salvation, we went through 1

John, and we looked at some of those things, so. Well, that would indicate that there certainly isn't a monolithic

CRE position on it, and that even some of those in the CRE are not necessarily following the

Auburn Avenue perspective on that. Okay, well, thanks, James. That was very helpful. All right, thanks. God bless.

All right, bye -bye. Let's quick talk to Aaron. Hi, Aaron. Hello, Aaron.

Yes, sir. I guess Dave Hunt's a little bit authentic in trying to get me to repent of my

Catholic Calvinist ways. Oh, he does believe that there is a direct connection.

Yeah, I'm sure that would be very hard to disprove, too. Impossible in his mind, yes. His tactics,

I'm on page about 320 -something. His tactics are so one -dimensional and predictable.

One thing I've noticed him doing constantly is he begins a chapter by saying, James didn't show a single verse that has this word in it.

I guess there's no such thing as deductive logic. You know, if you hear someone say they're going to pump 20 shotgun shells in a person, we could assume they're gonna, they just said they're gonna kill the person, but James, I mean,

Dave Hunt will say, no, no, no, if the guy didn't use the word killer -murder, you can't draw that conclusion.

It's constant, it's just throughout the entire book. I mean, every chapter of his begins with,

James did not show a single verse that begins with, that has this word, or this, or even more, this specific phrase in it, like the special ability for red herring.

Yes, yes. I know, and I did point that out. I could only point it out a certain number of times and have to trust the reader to recognize the consistency of the improper argumentation, the tactic, but I did point out that, you know, it goes to one's integrity.

When you say, you haven't shown us one verse, when in obvious, anyone who's just gotten done reading the previous section knows that you went through five verses and you exegeted them and you presented your conclusions, it just really destroys your own credibility to say there's not one verse that's even been brought forth.

No, he brought forth plenty of them. Just say, I disagree with the exegesis and go to the exegesis, but he doesn't do that.

I have a pretty serious question for you. I think it's almost evident by page 100, now that I'm on page 300,

I think this might be very clear. You yourself know that the most irrelevant response can be the one that takes the most time to deal with.

Oh yeah. Dave Hunt's logic seems to be so poor, it's coming to the point where I think he really doesn't think his position is solid.

He's just trying to give you busy work or just trying to just scatter your energy because I don't know, when you appeal to someone that being a slave is irrelevant because slaves could look for freedom, it's just, do you think,

I'm just wondering if it's just another case of Scott Hahn, when Scott Hahn just bowed the knee to Mary is, do you really think

Dave Hunt is really authentic anymore and believe in the solidity of his position because the superficiality of his answers were just almost to the level of disrespectful?

Well, unfortunately, when you look back at most of his work that you encounter the same thing. I mean,

I had to talk about the bad argumentation in the

Godmakers many, many, many years ago and he was involved with that. And I've always said that his material in Roman Catholicism is very surface level.

It doesn't, you know, I mean, he says many right things. It just always bothered me that it would always be couched in this way of not fairly handling the sources that it was dealing with and things like that.

And there is an entire segment of evangelicalism that wants that kind of material over anything

I'm gonna write. I mean, Dave Hunt has written so much more. He's sold so many more books than I will ever sell.

And the reason is he panders to that particular kind of mindset of people who want it black and white.

They don't want to be bothered with details. They don't wanna have to do the work of exegesis and they don't wanna have to be fair in thinking through what the other side says.

They just want to be able to just, you know, thrust the sword and move on to the next victim in essence as far as apologetics is concerned.

And so I think he's just simply so accustomed to having gotten away with that and not being called on the carpet by Christians anyways on that, that that's just all he can possibly do any longer.

And he cannot listen. He cannot hear where he's in error any longer.

His tradition has become so firmly entrenched as if it was the word of God that he just can't get past that without questioning basically the entirety of everything he believes.

And that is the danger of tradition and the danger of having a belief that's found upon something rather than the exegesis of the text of scripture.

So, you know, it's very clear. We now have documented evidence. We've documented it for a number of years now.

It doesn't matter how many times Mr. Hunt's corrected. It doesn't matter how many times he's responded to.

He's just gonna keep going back to the same old straw man argumentation because it's all he's got. It's all he's got.

I don't think there's anything else I could say. All righty, man. Thanks a lot. Thanks for calling. Bye bye. Let's talk to Jim in Nashville.

Hi, Jim. Hi, James. How are you? Doing good. Good. Like your former callers,

I've also worked my way through the debating Calvinism books. Congratulations. Thank you for the signed copy as well.

And yes, I'm equally stunned as the previous callers by the lack of logic.

And I think there's no more clear example of that than on page 48, which is pretty early in the book, but it certainly gave me an indication of where it was going.

And I had read What Love Is This, so I kind of had some idea what I was getting into when

I started reading. But if you can make sense of these words, see if you can help me out here, it's where Hunt is arguing that love is not only an attribute of God, but is the very essence of his being.

And then he argues the sovereignty that so rejoices the Calvinist. Though a great truth is not one of God's attributes, the word sovereignty isn't even found in the scripture.

So apparently sovereignty is a great truth, and yet not one of God's attributes.

In the very next paragraph, he says, God's sovereignty is fully exercised despite man's free will.

So God is actively exercising an attribute he does not have. And those are one paragraph apart.

Yes, yes. Now it seems to me that any fourth grade logic teacher. Fourth grade?

I wish they would teach logic anywhere in the public schools these days. Well, okay, you're right there.

But I mean, those were the kind of things that, okay, I wasn't expecting exegesis. Like I said,

I'd read What Love Is This. But these were the kind of things that were just stunning to me, the complete lack of logic, his own contradiction, a paragraph away from himself, and still didn't seem to get it.

And then started using the term extreme. Yes, extreme sovereignty, yes.

Extreme sovereignty. And doesn't it seem to me that that's a bit redundant? If you are, in fact, the sovereign, isn't there an automatic extremity attached to that?

Extreme absoluteness. Precisely. I mean, it's a redundancy. Of course, of course.

That undermines his own argument. Well, you see, the sovereignty of God, no one wants to be painted as if they don't believe in the sovereignty of God.

I mean, God's in charge. God's got power. God's still on the throne. Those all preach real well, even when in reality, what you really believe is that when it comes to the most significant thing that God has done, to bring himself glory,

God has abdicated his sovereignty. He has, in essence, given that sovereignty to man, and that it's man's exercise of man's extreme sovereignty, if we're gonna use such redundancies, that determines whether his ultimate self -glorifying work is going to succeed or fail.

Once you've taken that position, why in the world should you be talking about the sovereignty of God other than to just simply say, well,

God's out there, and he's keeping the sun going, and he's gonna keep the earth circling, and he'll bring seasons, and we'll let him do that kind of stuff out there.

But when it comes to the central act of salvation, we're gonna maintain our control.

That's what he's done, and therefore, he has to wink at sovereignty, say,

I believe in sovereignty, but then completely redefine it when it comes to the reality of how it works in time.

But to say that it is not one of God's attributes, and to say it that succinctly, and I don't think we should give up the ground of sovereignty, because the way he's painted the language now, we say

God is sovereign. He says that God is sovereign, but that we say he's extremely sovereign.

I would rather say we say he's sovereign. Hunt argues for limited sovereignty. Oh, yeah, oh, yeah,

Hunt argues for a sovereignty that is delimited by the autonomous nature of libertarian free will.

There's no question about that. But limited sovereignty, then, is an oxymoron. It certainly is. Yeah. Oh, well.

Certainly is. Well, and the book is just chock full of those fun little logical tidbits that just make my head spin.

Well, if you really wanna have your head spin, do what I've had to do. Well, I don't have to do this, but I did a couple nights ago.

I almost never read Amazon reviews, but I went ahead and went on Amazon, and I was surprised. The vast majority of the reviews were very positive, and they all said the same thing.

This was a lopsided debate, and Hunt was weighing over his head. But then somebody found some prophecy web board.

I mean, we're talking left -behind, Jerry Jenkins -type stuff, and we started looking at this stuff in Channel, and I'm reading this stuff, and I'm just going, this is frightening.

It is absolutely frightening when you read this stuff, because the left -behind crowd reads that and goes, wow, that was great.

Then you see the comments, and you realize they have no idea what they just read, but hey,

Dave Hunt said it, it must be great. So it's sort of frightening. He has a lot of those kind of books out on his own. Some of his early writing sensationalistic prophecy books were pretty wild anyway, so he's got a following in that crowd.

He does. The irony is I've got a book here that Pastor George gave me, Confessions of a

Heretic by Dave Hunt. I'm serious, in the 1970s, it's the story of his being disfellowshipped from the

Brethren. And what I just played today was from a Brethren church.

I found it. And you know why he was disfellowshipped? Why? He spoke in tongues once. Well, that'll do it.

That was what it was all about. It's a fascinating little book. Hey, thanks for your call, Jim. Take care. God bless, bye -bye.

Bye -bye. All right, well, I promise, even though I've got like 11 more clips, unless there's some massive reason, we'll go on to something else.

There's still a lot to talk about out there. And Thursday morning, 11 a .m.,

Lord willing, we'll get back together here on the little old webcast, and we'll talk about other things important to the kingdom of God, the defense of the faith.

That's what we call the dividing line, the dividing line between truth and error. We look forward to seeing you, 11 o 'clock

Thursday morning. God bless. ♪ Standing at the crossroads ♪ ♪

We need a new reformation day ♪ Brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -0318, or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the worldwide web at aomin .org.

That's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.