Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?" Examined

Here is James White.

Dave Hunt’s Book and the Call for a Debate

And welcome to the dividing line. My name is James White and it finally arrived. It took forever, but I hold in my hands. What love is this Calvinism's? Misrepresentation of God. By Dave Hunt is it as bad as I expected it to be?

Yes, it is as bad as I expected it to be but as I have learned with Chosen but free by Norman Geisler and really whenever anyone attacks God's truth Good always comes out of that and that's what we'll be looking at today here on the dividing line.

Good to be back with everyone this week. Been gone a little bit been traveling great to meet folks and met some great young men from Youngstown, Ohio came up gave me a shirt at the conference I was speaking at last week and and Get to meet a lot of you folks who either listen live or you listen to the archives the dividing line each week.

And it's very very encouraging to meet folks. But we have been getting a tremendous amount of email and interest in the response to Dave Hunt's book. And so it finally arrived. I had the opportunity of leafing through it.

At the conference I spoke at in st. Louis where I also spoke with mr. Hunt had a dinner with mr. Hunt and Talked with him about the debating because I feel that by far the most effective means of refuting this book Is to debate the issue.

Because the kind of constant argumentation used is circular and hence in Debates where you have to undergo cross-examination. The entirety of mr. Hunt's argument against the reformed faith would collapse in a very short period of time.

I'll be giving you examples of this kind of fallacious argumentation on mr. Hunt's part, but first I would like to remind you of Some of the background in regards to this book. I Have obviously warned mr. Hunt along with many many other people That he should not write this book that he was putting himself in a position of being Of just basically destroying his credibility as an exegete or as a writer.

I guess I should say as mr. Hunt himself said on May 12 2001 I know nothing about Greek. It might as well be Chinese, but I can read English. That's a direct quote May 12 2001 I was in the audience. In fact, I was in the sound booth of the church that mr Hunt was speaking at we were both plenary speakers at a conference there May 12 2001.

I know nothing about Greek. It might as well be Chinese, but I can read English. That's Dave Hunt's direct quotation of himself and Hence the idea of being involved in exegesis. He recognizes that the original languages are beyond his grasp that does not stop him in This book from making all sorts of outrageous Claims about the original languages and all sorts of outrageous errors concerning the original languages but he does not claim to be an exegete on that level and Instead just makes numerous errors because I guess he just wants to submit his materials to those who would be able to correct The errors that he's making but I have told mr. Hunt.

I told mr. Hunt all along That he should not write this book that he did not have the background to write this book. Many other people also told him that in fact in his book He wrote to the following.

This is on page 22 as it became known that I intended to write such a book a number of pastors cautioned me to refrain from publicly expressing myself on this subject because out of ignorance of its true teachings I had already misrepresented it.

A typical response from the Calvinist friends to whom I send an early manuscript for comment went like this. The caricatures you present the straw men you construct demonstrate to me that you have absolutely no understanding the reformed position.

And until you do I would counsel that you refrain from putting anything in print and quote and I just stopped for a moment. And say that is exactly what every reformed person that I have talked to who has talked with mr Hunt has said and that's very much what I said to mr. Hunt in the letters that I sent to him as well.

I Continue reading from page 22 letters began to pour into our ministry the brain call from around the world many from pastors insisting that I Was unqualified to address Calvinism and urging me to seal my lips and drop my pen regarding this topic.

It was suggest that would lose many friends and alienate myself from leading Evangelicals most of whom were said to be convinced Calvinists furthermore who would publish such a book since the major publishers had brought out many books On the other side and now let me just stop there.

I certainly did not make those arguments. I do not believe for a moment That this should be a topic that is not discussed. I do not believe for a moment that if you're convinced of what you believe you should be overly concerned about losing friends or alienating Other people.

I've alienated about everybody there is to alienate and as far as publishers, that's simply ridiculous. There are many publishers who publish on both sides and most publishers would not publish reformed works.

I mean, I'm reminded of Cademan's call Derek Webb Is an acquaintance of mine from Caden's call and he noted that there were radio stations that would not play their reformed song thankful because of its theology, so Reformed theology is not the majority in evangelicalism today.

I can guarantee you that so anyways continues on page 22. What moved me most was the concern earnestly expressed by close friends that a book for me on this issue could cause division. The last thing I wanted we can hear it.

We can just hear it now several friends told me here comes Dave Hunt again this time. He's attacking Calvinist. That concern weighed heavily upon me that concern would not Weigh heavily upon me. That that would not be an issue at all for me.

Truth divides and if this is an issue in regards to truth, then that would not be an issue at all. Finally, he says one must be willing to accept wise counsel, but the advice to remain silent though given by so many I have genuine concern seemed after much prayer and soul-searching my part to be ill advised.

Spurgeon called the debate over God's sovereignty and man's free will a controversy. Which I believe to have been really healthy and which has done us all a vast amount of good. My heart's desires this book will be only to God's eternal glory into the blessing of his people.

Well, that's very nice. And I am going to hold mr. Hunt to the statement that he makes over and over again We need to debate the subject because I've challenged mr. Hunt to debate this subject fully in person live in front of microphones and video cameras.

And I talked with mr. Hunt two weekends ago in fact. Two weekends ago last evening and.

I.

Really insisted that the only way to really deal with this to demonstrate who is speaking the truth and who can answer the questions is to have an In-person debate and at the time he seemed willing to agree to that.

I in fact had suggested November maybe early December as a time when we could get together. We could find a place and we could to do a Friday night Saturday morning Saturday afternoon or Saturday evening three full sessions six seven hours minimally.

Of debates on the key issues in regards to his book and to my book the Potter's freedom which he cites from Frequently in his book accusing me of scripture twisting and various and sundry other things as well.

So.

That Challenge remains, and I am NOT going to back off on it. I've heard since then that someone was talking to him said well You know he maybe he suggested maybe all could do a book together or do an internet debate or something.

No no no. This needs to be done in fact today May 4th Dave Hunt is debating dr. Joseph Piper At the Joe Chambers King James only Gail Ripplinger Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. I had let mr.. Chambers know that I'd be more than happy to debate mr.. Hunt there.

Mr. Chambers would not allow me to do so because mr. Chambers says I'm too mean the reason for that is that mr. Chambers was on the John Ankerberg program and on King James only ism defending Gail Ripplinger.

And he lost and lost badly and anybody who watches that knows that and therefore he would not allow me to be a part of that particular debate. So that's the background of that, but mr. Hunt is doing a debate against Dr.. Piper this very day in fact in just a matter of hours, so there is no logical or rational reason for mr. Hunt to avoid doing a debate against one of the people that he quotes most frequently and makes personal Accusations of scripture twisting against in his book and if mr. Hunt will not do so I think that will speak very very loudly to the Integrity of this particular book in this entire particular subject, but going back in history just a little bit I want to give you a little more background here.

Going back in history. I want to remind you we've talked about this before. But if this is the first time you're listening to this particular subject Mr.. Hunt and I have talked before in fact if you go to straightgate .com you will find looking at I believe June 23rd 30th And July 7th of 2001 three dividing lines in a row where I deal with Dave Hunt's sermons against Calvinism and demonstrate that he is in error over and over and over again.

I sent those tapes to mr. Hunt. And it was in result it was in response to that that he said oh I'd be glad to debate you. But then things changed after that and I was told well there are other reformed authors my my publisher wants to do you to debate First and and so on so forth, but hopefully you've gotten past those things by talking directly to mr. Hunt and.

But we have dealt with this issue before and it all started in August of 2000 August of 2000 when I had a dialogue with Dave Hunt on the Marty Minto show in fact mr. Hunt's ministry makes the tapes of this available which I find absolutely amazing we have them on the website.

There at straightgate .com you can look them up there. You can listen two parts. You can listen to them. What I've done is I've put together a Quotation from the beginning of that where mr. Hunt admits he is ignorant of the Reformers.

Then right afterwards and you'll sort of be able to tell a difference in the sound quality. Five months later January of 2001 I put together a quotation from mr. Hunt's own Breen call radio broadcast and I think these particular two quotations say a lot well.

First of all James I'm very ignorant of the Reformers. I have not had time to read them. There are truckloads I guess of their writings and I like to just kind of pretend that We're back there in the days of the Apostles before all of these things were written.

And I like to go to the Bible. So whether the Reformers said this or that I don't know. I disagree with a lot of Martin Luther, for example, what I read is 95 theses on indulgences and when I read the Augsburg Confession it sounds to me like they were still pretty much Catholics.

That's one of the Things that concerns me Tom because we've gotten some very angry letters. Accusing me of not knowing anything about Calvinism. Well, if they want to walk in my study and see the many many books that I have read by leading Calvinists both past and present Calvin's Institutes that I have all highlighted and Augustine whom I've read and Luther and so forth I think I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves.

Calvinists. Well, there you go within five months Dave Hunt goes from saying I'm ignorant to the Reformers. I had asked him about how he can be a synergist and agree with Rome on that subject and and be Opposition to Reformers and that was his answer.

I thought I don't know what the Reformers said. I really can't answer that question and Then that moves only five months later. So between August of 2000 and January 2001 all of a sudden Dave Hunt has become an expert on Calvinism and all things Calvinistic.

Now a lot of folks have said oh, come on. That's that's just that's just not possible. Well, that's right. It isn't possible. But you need to recognize that for mr Hunt, mr. Hunt is not looking to learn Calvinism.

The book that he has produced in 2002 is Identical in its perspective and in the errors of its arguments of what he was saying in 2000. He learned nothing because he wasn't looking to learn anything. He was looking for quotations and he got his quotations, but that's all that he was doing.

He wasn't Actually listening to what reform people were saying and the number of times even I'm misrepresented in his books. Demonstrates this very very clearly now I'm not gonna go back over all the stuff that we did in those dividing line programs before because now we have the book and we can document the errors and we can demonstrate the The problems the book right here, but I'm just simply pointing out.

I sent those dividing line programs to mr Hunt and I I told him Dave if you go to print with this. Those of us who love truth will have absolutely no.

Choice.

But to defend that truth and to demonstrate that you are completely wrong and It's not a matter of saying that Dave Hunt's an unbeliever. I believe that Dave Hunt is a believer. I really do and in fact what I have to do here You're all get to listen to.

I thought I had this all queued up and unfortunately I didn't so y 'all get to listen to me queuing something up on the air. Isn't that sort of fun? But I Had a section here, let me just listen to a few things.

But sounds terrible still, but he's not willing that any should perish. What does dead mean? I mean with Lazarus dead.

With one comment on the draw the word draw and I think he takes that out of its proper meaning. And I think our people puts it the best when he says when a man goes to a well, okay.

I'm looking. I'm looking here. It's right. It's around here someplace.

Trying to go the Bible which says for God so loved because he's not willing that any should perish. Now you twist that to make.

It here we go. I rejected. Because okay right there there there we go. He he likes to use term scripture twisting and also I'm sounding very strange in my headsets here. He likes to use the term scripture twisting.

So I jumped in this point. I want you to listen what he said. Basically I raised the issue of tradition.

And.

That whole issue comes out very very clearly in this exchange between he and I should perish. Now you twist that to make it. Because he's not willing to let the elect should perish that's redundant. No, it's not gonna.

No, it is not David and I would just like to say since you're gonna make the accusation I'm twisting scripture. You haven't answered any of the passages that have presented to you. You've run away from them to other passages and I'd like to say that you're utilizing the traditions of men to do so.

It is your tradition to understand world the way you do all the way you do I it is your tradition to not see John 6 in its Clarity where it clearly says that all that the father gives him. It's your tradition to see for known as God.

Jane, oh.

Dave Dave these the people that are the most the Bible Dave the people that are most Enslaved to tradition are the people who think they don't have any right there the I don't have a tradition James. There it is.

That's going to be we're gonna provide a response To mr. Hunt's book. I'm not gonna write a book in response this it wouldn't it's it's Seriously does not contain enough meaningful exegesis or argumentation to warrant a book.

But we are gonna provide a response and I'm gonna do it in two ways. First of all We well, obviously we want to have a debate we want to Provide a videotapes people can can actually see can this kind of argumentation withstand cross-examination.

The answer is no it cannot. Can the reform position you better believe it can that was shown that's been shown in every debate We've ever done on this and it'll be shown with the greatest clarity when mr. Hunt and I do this debate.

There's no question about that in my mind but the other thing we do is we're going to provide a web-based debate that comes out of our chat room and It's going to be titled blinded by tradition and there's going to be a link To that very quotation.

We'll have to get a little bit cleaner than that particular one. Because for some reason we we seemingly have deleted that particular file. I had to pull it off the web. We couldn't find it. We looked for it all over the place.

But anyways, we Will provide a link to that very section where Dave says I have no traditions James and then we're gonna do is we're gonna have all the folks in the chat show not all the folks but A number of the folks in the of our regular reform folks in the chat channel Take sections of hunts book and write responses to it so there'll be a main page and then you'll be able to see all the responses as they're written and you can click on them and you can See responses as they're as they're submitted by the people in the chat channel.

And one of the reasons I'm doing in the chat channels because as mr Hunt says he thinks he knows more about Calvinism than most Calvinist. Well, most of the folks in our chat channel are a bunch of Calvinist.

So let's find out that's the case or not. So it seems to seems to work out really well to do it that way so that's how we're gonna respond to it a.

Full.

Debate the challenges is out there. I'm ready for November December. Mr Hunt, let's do it. Let's let's get this thing nailed down. You said you'd do it. You said to me personally that you would do it when we stood at your table I was holding your book in in in my hand I had just seen where you had identified me as someone who is engaging in scripture twisting and I said Dave Let's let's debate.

Let's let's do this and you had said that would be fine. So I think that's something we definitely Definitely need to do. What's the major problem this book? Well It's real simple Mr. Hunt does not know how to do meaningful exegesis and His research is horrific.

Now Dave has made has has made errors in past books and we've noted that that in general the way he operates is he takes his conclusion and Then he raises his conclusion as part of his argumentation. We're gonna see this in a couple of quotes.

I'm gonna be reading from the book even today. But that kind of circular argumentation then leads to errors in exegesis as well. And even though Amazingly enough. Mr. Hunt accuses me of isogesis in John chapter 6 without ever touching the text of John chapter 6 himself.

It is it is. Mr. Hunt that again is forced into repeated examples of isogesis and I'm not the only one who has Has said that in the past and we now have 436 pages of Documented evidence of that. Hey CDS, you're you're part of the people writing the responses.

So you better get hold the book and get get studying. Anyways, that's someone chat channel for those of you who are not Listening live at the particular time. Let me give you an example of what I mean by by not Engaging in exegesis, this is another section from our our Conversation with with one that listen to how this goes the article a question that was asked in the August Bree and call newsletter, which is it seems that Calvinism is gaining influence and as a result is causing controversy and even division in some churches.

I think there's an important subject and I don't recall you ever giving your opinion. Would you please do so in the Q &A? section and In that particular response said Dave you said something similar to what you just said and that is this Jesus weeps over Jerusalem.

How often would I have gathered you together at the hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but ye would not. Christ could not state more clearly that he truly wants to bless them and that they have rejected him.

But Calvinism changes the whole picture if they are totally depraved and they can't believe in him unless he causes them to do. So through irresistible grace, so would I and you would not for the Calvinist really mean I would not and ye could not.

You just cited Matthew 23 37 the same way.

On.

Just before we took our break. But if you'll look at your Bible a Dave then the citation in the article is in error. First I don't know where it says he's weeping over Jerusalem. But secondly your rendition says how often would I have gathered you?

But the text says how often where I have gathered your children together as the hen gathers her chicks under her wings but you would not and I one of the reasons I point this out is that The I believe this passage is is frequently misused.

And in fact, I sent the Potter's freedom up to you you'll notice there's a chapter in there called the big three and That's because Norman Geisler in his book chosen but free which I was responding to cites Matthew 23 37 2nd Peter 3 9 and 1st Timothy 2 for over and over and over again in the course of the of the Book and one of the problems is that Matthew 23 37 a is not a soteriological passage.

It's not a passage talking about how men can be saved. It's not discussing the abilities of man. It is instead secondly a passage that is in condemnation to the Jewish leaders. The entire passage beginning all the way back in Matthew 23 at the very beginning talks about the Scribes and Pharisees.

Verse 13 says world you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people. For you do not enter in yourselves nor do you allow those who are entering to go in? This is the same thing here that these these men have Resisted the the work of God all along and the most important thing is in verse 37.

Is that the ones that it says Jesus wants to gather even if you take that to be? Soteriological that is I want to save them even if you take that out of context. It's not the same people who are unwilling.

The ones who are unwilling are the Jewish leaders. It's their children those who are under them that Jesus wants to gather and the condemnation is the Jewish leaders are Standing in Jesus's way. So I found it interesting that is that both the last time you just just read it and then in the article It was changed.

I'm sure it's just typographical error. But how often would I have gathered you together, but you would not. That's not what Jesus said in Matthew 23.

Yes, well. You ask first of all many weeks. Luke 19 41 When he came near He beheld the city and wept over it. Okay, saying if thou hadst known even thou at least in this side day the things which belong unto thy peace and.

Now they're hid from thine eyes He's talking about.

All of all of Jerusalem. Well the destruction of Jerusalem there, but you know, but here in Matthew 23, there's no mention of that.

But that's just secondary that but. But James Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem down back to Matthew 23 now that kill us the prophets. It wasn't just the leaders that killed the prophets. It was all of the people that killed the prophets.

And let's forget Jesus for the moment. I think Jesus is Saying he's showing that he's God and all through the Old Testament. You have God Through his prophets the weeping prophet Jeremiah Who weeps over Jerusalem.

And. And this brings us I think to the crux of the issue because Why does God send his prophets? And weep and and plead and call upon the people to Repent when they can't repent. Unless he extends irresistible grace to them.

And this is what I really I really want to understand this. Do you believe that God could if he so desired He could extend irresistible grace to everyone. He could save the whole world. They could all go to heaven.

But instead he lets millions maybe billions go to hell.

Well, we'll get back to Matthew 23 37 because I don't want to leave that but a I don't get the feeling David that. You are familiar with what the term irresistible grace means. Well, I want you to explain it.

So the irresistible grace is simply this. When a reformed person speaks of irresistible grace, we are talking about regeneration. We are talking about causing a person who is spiritually dead to be brought to spiritual life being born.

Again, and we believe that it is irresistible grace because dead people don't resist anything. Corpses can't stop you from doing anything. When Jesus walked up to the grave of Lazarus in John chapter 11 He said Lazarus come forth.

It is not an issue where Lazarus could sit there in the grave and go. Well, I'm not sure I sort of like it in here. I like being dead. It didn't like my sisters. Whatever it is. No when Jesus says Lazarus come forth Lazarus comes forth because what God commands happens and so an answer to your question if God Desired to save every single individual by causing them to be regenerated and born again.

It is certainly within the capacity of the God who created all things. The God that psalm 135 6 says does whatever he desires in the heaven on earth. The God described in Ephesians 1 11 as the one who works all things after the counsel of his will.

Those same prophets who you're just quoting said there is no one who can stop his hand or ask him. Why are you doing this? So if you're asking the question, could God save every single individual? There is without a question that is fully within his capacity.

The question is Has it been God's eternal will to give his grace which has to be given freely? To every single undeserving person or does God have the freedom to give his mercy to whom he will have mercy.

Now you'll notice that in that particular Section never did. Mr. Hunt respond to the fact that he himself had miscited Matthew 23 37 he did not respond to any of the exegesis that I offered and sadly.

That is exactly what we get in. What love is this Calvinism's misrepresentation of God? Nothing has changed. Let's let's start looking at it. If you don't have your copy yet. Hmm. Oh, yeah, I guess we do need to take a break.

Don't we I'm gonna be looking at page 98 and a Quotation from the Potter's freedom page 98 for those of you who have it. And if you don't well, you'll be able to look at it when you get your copy. I suppose we'll continue looking at what love is this Dave Hunt's new anti Calvinistic book right after this.

The Charge of Ignorance and the Need for Exegesis

And welcome back to dividing line. My name is James white.

We're looking at Dave Hunt's new book, which by the way has Exceptional endorsements. That's what the back of the book says. We have Tim LaHaye. I'm sorry, Tim LaHaye. Who who tells us that Calvinism comes Paris perilously close to blasphemy.

And we have Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel. And we have Elmer Towns from Liberty University.

Of.

William Macdonald. Author of more than 80 books in 100 languages, including the believers Bible commentary and true discipleship. I seemingly missed him. We have Chuck Missler's of y2k fame. Arno Froesey from the midnight call ministry.

Joe Chambers, yes indeed Joe Chambers of Gail Rippling her fame and Bob Wilkin the founder executive director of Gracie Evangelical Society. There's. There's the endorsements. Wow. There's a reason for that I'm sending this tape.

Dave. Dave this this books bad. That's just all there is to it. We tried to tell you We think I think you're a wonderful gentleman in person. But the the character of the book is bad. It's nasty and the exegesis is non-existent and historically I mean anybody who has the first knowledge of Augustine is going to Rip your lips off quite simply because it's just that bad.

It's just it it. Anyways, let's let's look at some some examples. Page 98 under the topic born again before salvation James White devotes an entire chapter to the inabilities of man. He recites a long list of man's sins of his evil of his depravity and explains that he is a fallen creature a slave to sin Spiritually dead and capable of doing what is pleasing to God.

End quote. He cites many scriptures concerning man's estrangement from God and the deceitfulness of his heart. That he can no more change his heart than the leopard can change his spots. That his mind is hostile toward God.

That no man can Come to Christ except the Father draw him and so forth. White declares quote the Reformed assertion is that man cannot understand and embrace the gospel nor respond in faith and repentance toward Christ without God first freeing him from sin and giving him spiritual life.

Regeneration and quote even though the quote is missing in the text. That's a little bit of a editing error. Anyways, then hunt says the following. Nowhere, however. Does he cite a scripture that declares man's inability to believe the gospel or to receive the free gift of eternal life?

Which God offers to all? Now that's just simply not true. I Pleasing to God he cited that. That's from Romans chapter 8 verses 7 through 8. I have a whole section on how that teaches inability. I have a whole section on John 6 44 and how it teaches inability, but when we look at Mr. Hunt's attempt to deal with John 6 44 will discover that.

Despite the fact we discussed it on the air. Despite the fact that I said in the book despite the fact he quotes from it. He still does not understand what I'm saying. He is blinded by his tradition. He cannot hear what I'm saying.

No matter how hard I try to make it clearer and clearer and clearer the notice the circularity. Nowhere, however. Does he cite a scripture declares man's inability to believe the gospel or to receive the free gift of eternal life?

Which God offers to all? Okay, there's his his fundamental presupposition. God offers. It's all and when we get into the passages that Talk about whether it truly is in that sense. Just simply a sort of a peanut butter offering that there's no special call of the gospel to the elect.

He will keep repeating that as an argument against interpreting any scripture in another light. That's circular reasoning. Circular reasoning. Then we go to page Again for those of you who I mean I ordered this thing back in December.

It just arrived so some of you might not have it. But I know others that do I know Eric Nielsen said he had his and thank you Ian for sending me what I now have. But anyways, some people do have it. Page 198 hundred pages later.

Under the topic of unconditional election and if any of you are asking what does he does he ever interact? With the actual exegesis of the text that you offer the answer. No Mr. Hunt can't do it and people you shouldn't say that kind of thing folks.

Listen, this is gonna be one of the biggest issues because see Dave says I'm an elitist for saying that Dave hunt cannot do exegesis. He is not trained to do it. Now, mr. Hunt is a trained mathematician.

He's a CPA. He knows how to do numbers. I am NOT and The parallel would be if he were to write an article in which he presented Of how to use particular formulas to Produce depreciation rates and and figure Certain tables and things like that if he wrote an article on that which he certainly would be capable of doing.

He's been trained to do it. It would be just as silly for me to try to write a rebuttal of it as this book is for him because I Haven't taken the time now. I'm not saying that that that I couldn't take the time I could stop everything I'm doing go to school.

I have the capacity to learn that and I would assume that mr. Hunt at some point in his life He could have taken Greek. He could have taken Hebrew he could have have taken you know gotten an education in those areas if you'd wanted to but he chose not to and so to in essence say These people are all wrong, but I can't deal with the heart of their actual argumentation.

I can only deal with their conclusions and say I don't like their conclusions and argue in circles Is not really what we needed that that doesn't edify anybody and that's what this particular This particular book is all about so under the section of unconditional election.

And here.

We read the following. Even more troubling. Why did Calvin's God choose to save so few when he could have saved all. I stopped for a moment. Mr. Hunt, how do you know? It's so few. Where do Calvinists say that.

Certainly Jesus said there be few that find the way of life, but doesn't the book of Revelation talk about as many as the sand of the sea. Isn't there a great crowd that surrounds the throne. Without apology.

James White informs us quote. Why is one man raised to eternal life and another left to eternal destruction. It is according to the kind intention of his will and quote. So it is God's kindness that causes him to save so few and to damn so many.

We are aghast at such a concept and we are offended on behalf of our God. Well, I'm offended. Mr Hunt that you can't read my book with much clarity. Because you sort of use those little ellipses, you know those little dot dot dots and.

You might want to read the whole section. I thought I really hope that people will take the time to read the whole section and find out what I'm talking about. Let me read it. But to what were Christians and see the do-do-do-do-do-do in six times.

The options are gonna say this is on this is in the exegesis section, which by the way is utterly untouched outside. I should say this. Mr. Hunt does try to argue the meaning of proper Rizzo and Praga nosco.

However, it doesn't work again, someone who says I can't read I can't read Greek should probably not attempt to. Say a lot of things that that he had that he's done. Do do do do do do do do do do. Man did it a bit of it?

Okay.

The next phrase this is at the bottom page 177 if any of you have the powers for him. The next phrase answers many a question of mankind. Why has God chosen to save a particular people? Why is one man raised to eternal life and are left to eternal destruction.