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

Here is James White 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 in 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 to 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 Berean 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 when

I read his 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 an opposition to the

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 of 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 the

Dave Hunt's an unbeliever. I believe that Dave Hunt is a believer I really do and in fact what I'm gonna 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 Because God sounds terrible still but he's not willing that any should perish.

What does that 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 one. 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 I'm trying to go to the Bible which says for God so loved because he's not willing that any should perish now

You twist that to make it. Oh, there we go I reject 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 Now you twist that to make it a little

I reject Because he's not willing to let the election 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

Dave 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 meaning 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 chatroom 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 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 end of our regular reform folks in the chat channel

Take sections of Hunt's 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

Calvinists Well, most of the folks in our chat channel are a bunch of Calvinists So let's find out if 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 is a Jesus 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 Isaac Jesus 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 to listen to how this goes the article a question that was asked in the

August Brian 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 as 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 day when 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 would I have gathered your children together as the hen gathers her chicks under her wings

But you would not and I love 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 4 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 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 wanted 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 way, so I found it interesting that is it 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

Then he came near He beheld the city and left 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

Jerusalem there, but you know but here in Matthew 23 There's no mention of that, but that's just secondary, but but James Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem valve 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 is 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 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 to me 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. I 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 Ephesians 1 11 As the one who works all things after the counsel of his will those same prophets

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 Oh Yeah, I guess we do need to take a break don't we

I'm gonna be looking at page 98 and 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 You 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 Townes from Liberty University William McDonald 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 frozee 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 in 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 Mean he even noted up above notice. I said Incapable of doing what is 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 then notice the circularity

Nowhere, however Does he cite a scripture that declares man's inability to believe the gospel or to receive the free gift of eternal self eternal life?

Which God offers to all? Okay, there's his his Fundamental presupposition

God offers it to 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 it.

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's 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 we're

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 man the dead 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? The scriptures offer an answer that is satisfying to the believer but insufficient for the person unwilling to trust in God's goodness

What is the basis of God's act of predestination? It is according to the kind intention of his will each word is important It is his will not our will and remember this is speaking not of some general plan to save So that it is

God who initiates but man who actuates This is the specific predestination of individuals to sonship the basis of this specific decree is

God's will No mention is found of man's will There is the quotation

There is the citation you're offended. Mr. Hunt Well, I'm offended that you don't deal with the fact that I wasn't giving you my opinion.

I was exegeting Ephesians chapter 1 Deal with what Ephesians chapter 1 says, mr.

Hunt because that's what Paul said That's why we need to debate the issue because in cross -examination

I'm going to ask you to stay in Ephesians chapter 1 verse 6 and Explain the exact meanings of the words

You brought up what those words mean in your book You brought up what you say proridzo meant you bring up what you think progenosco means

Let's deal with the text not with your traditions and my traditions.

Yes, you do have them Dave Yes, you have them and some people asking. Why do you keep referring to mr

Hunt the first person because I'm gonna send him the tapes just like I did before I Don't say anything behind anybody's backs

I'm not anything that I say is gonna be right out in front of everybody. Here's the facts. Let's debate the issues

These are Vitally important points If I'm gonna be consistent on these issues and say that the

Roman Catholics are wrong about this the Roman Catholics are wrong about that Well, then when Dave Hunt makes the exact same errors the

Roman Catholics make in Isagetica Lee trying to get around God's Sovereign freedom and salvation then

I had better be consistent or I'm a hypocrite and I'm not going to be a hypocrite

That is not honoring and glorifying to God Okay, so So it is

God's kindness that causes him to save so few and to damn so many I never said that of course I Don't know how many

God's gonna save but I know one thing if he saves one unregenerate God -hating sinner it's grace unknown and Only when you get rid of the height of God's holiness and the depth of man's depravity

Can you even argue the way that mr. Hunt is currently arguing in his book? Well, they're worse.

Let me just skip over this one because this one's gonna take a few minutes There's a bunch of stuff about the meaning of the whole world there was something here about I may have not put the

My little marquee marquee thingy on the thing. I wanted to show here because I there was a section where I Look at through the historical section things like that.

I noticed a number of errors and things like that But there was a whole section on what it means

Unconditional election and I was just Again, it's sort of you know, if I had hair you could

I could try to pull it out, but Mr. Hunt cites my book.

It says see White has a whole section here on unconditional election a necessity

But all he quotes are men. He just quotes men's opinions Problem was if you read the potter's freedom

That's the chapter where I'm demonstrating that Norman Geisler's redefinition of Unconditional election is a historical it is a chapter.

That's basically nothing more to demonstrate that what he calls unconditional election Which means it's unconditional from God's part but conditional for man's part is not what anyone has ever meant by unconditional election

So why in the world you'd cite that and not put it in its proper context as to what I was talking about Again, I'm gonna

I'm gonna assume that's ignorance and not dishonesty because it certainly would be dishonest if you knew what it was about to make that kind of presentation

I was just gonna bring that one up, but I can't find the place where I marked it I do want to however and this is

I'm gonna spend a little time on this one Open your Bibles if you have them to acts 1348 when I was in st.

Louis For some reason the First verse

I looked up now, there's not a topic index in this book. Unfortunately, I wish there was but there is a scripture index of Acts 1348 the reason being if you go back and you listen to the dividing lines we did before even in the letters

I sent to mr. Hunt I pointed out that his his attempt to get around acts 1348 simply did not add up in light of scripture

It did not add up in light of the construction that's found in the Greek text

I pointed out Luke's constant use of The term

Tasso and its meaning I looked I pointed out to him the periphrastic construction all the rest that stuff

And in light of all that I had hoped that Possibly in the production of the book.

He would come up with some other type of answer the way did he did not He chose to ignore the refutation that was provided to him

And so I'm gonna point out all the errors here and there's a bunch of them And I would invite people who love truth to contact.

Mr. Hunt and say Dave Why did you do this? Why in light of the fact that she already had received correction is why do you go to press with stuff that you've been shown?

Is not right and I'm telling you the reason is very simple The reason is very simple

Dave Hunt is blinded by tradition Dave Hunt is blinded by tradition.

That's just all there is to it So let's look at acts 1348. This is found on pages 210 through 211

In mr. Hunt's book pages 210 to 11. There's about page and a half that deals with acts 1348

Let me just read you what he says and this is this is Give you an idea of You know

How the argumentation functions here One of the Calvinist favorite proof text is acts 1348 where we read that as many as were ordained to eternal life believed

Vance says and by the way, he this is just a warmed over version of Vance if you want to know

I mean, he really really relies upon that book and that book is horrible but you know, that's

Many Arminians will quote from other Arminians That's where how it works Vance says every Calvinist no matter what else he believes uses this verse to prove unconditional election

Nettleton claims that is this verse that made him a Calvinist white devotes four pages to it now notice

He knows I devoted four pages to it why he doesn't respond to what's in those four pages is a good question

Palmer exalts here is another text with stunning clarity for whoever will read the Bible without preconceived notions

The stark simplicity of this text is astounding in fact ordained to eternal life while it is so shown in the major translations as white is quick to point out is

At best a questionable rendering and many Greek scholars call it a wrong translation

The Greek word is Tasso and has a variety of meanings and usages. It is found eight times in the

New Testament and None of them carries the meaning of a decree from God nor of something that is unchangeable or eternal

So there is no basis for assigning that meaning here now There are no footnotes there.

There were no footnotes on many Greek scholars we aren't told who these people are and The assertion that was just made no foundation is given for that, but I continue

The Liddell and Scott Greek Dictionary offers a number of alternate meanings but ordain or For ordain is not one of them in 1st

Corinthians 16 15 the KJV for example Tasso is translated addicted the house of Stephanus have addicted themselves to the ministry of the

Saints in Acts 15 to it is translated Determined decided they determined that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem Many Greek experts suggest the same idea here that the

Gentiles had disposed themselves ie determined to believe Now stop for just a moment.

Listen What does he say they're saying that the that they had disposed themselves to believe?

That's his assertion. Let's continue on Several authorities trace the

KJV is wrong rendering to the corrupt Latin Vulgate which as te page points out has prayed or on the

I'll get it right pray or do not see unfairly dot dot dot end of quote

Cook's commentary reads the AV authorized version ie KJV has followed the Vulgate rather it should read were set in order for ie disposed for eternal life as in Syriac and Repeatedly in Josephus as many as had placed themselves in the ranks of those who welcomed the offer of eternal life and quote

Likewise Dean Alford translated as many as were disposed to eternal life believed Clearly there are differences of opinion concerning the technical considerations of the

Greek which only the experts are competent to discuss That being the case we ought to come down the side of a rendering which harmonizes with the rest of Scripture There are dozens of passages which declare in the plainest language

The gospel is offered to whosoever will believe it and that God desires all mankind to be saved

Consequently it would be improper to adopt here a questionable interpretation as the basis for rejecting the overwhelming weight of Scripture The expositors

Greek Testament says there is no countenance here for the absolutum decretum of the Calvinists 80

Robertson says virtually the same thing in almost the same words The word ordained is not the best translation here

The Jews had voluntarily rejected the Word of God on the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the

Jews had rejected Why these Gentiles here raid arranged themselves on God's side

Luke does not tell us this verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency

There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation So the experts disagree

Like almost every other Greek word Tosca has several meanings the best way to determine which meaning applies is to consider the context

When we do that the choice becomes clear the Jews have just rejected the gospel And that is why Paul has turned the

Greeks in Acts 13 46 Paul says the Jews But seeing that ye put in put it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life lo

We turn to the Gentiles verse 48 presents the contrast between the Jews who had set themselves against the gospel and the

Gentiles who disposed themselves to receive it Thus it is saying that as many Greeks as were disposed to eternal life believed

That meaning is at least allowable from the word Tosca and it seems to be demanded by the context

Why not accept it because to do so would undermine Calvinism we can find no other reason well

There's the section Wow, where do we start? Well, first of all, we will note that even though Mr.

Hunt Recognizes the four pages that were included in the

Potter's Freedom There is no discussion of what is actually said there there was no discussion of The syntax there is no discussion of the grammar

There is no discussion of anything in it at all that happens over and over again in this particular book

I provided beginning on page 187 of the book The translations that read ordained to eternal life

King James Version ASV New King James Version New Revised Standard Version NASB Update New Living Translation New English Translation since then dragging the microphone over here a little bit.

Oh Man I can't read the size of my screen this far away. Let me turn here. Let's see ASV RSV ESV ISV King James Version NET the

Roman Catholic NAB Let's see here NASB 95

A New King James Version New Living Translation NRSV and Good News Bible.

I Should note I Have found two translations and this is rather I find this absolutely positively

Precious I have found two translations. Well, one isn't a translation the Living Bible the

Living Bible paraphrase in a Footnote gives disposed

So there's the Living Bible paraphrase. Now. Remember Dave Hunt is is is King James. He's not

King James only but he's King James preferred And he has to reject the King James at this point

He has to reject all the modern translations, but last week those in the channel know what's about to come up.

I did discover one English translation that agrees Yes, Dean Alford in his

Commentary does render it disposed. That's not a translation But I have found one translation done by a committee rather than an individual

That renders it disposed You know what it is? The only one I know of is the

New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses Yep, Dave Hunt agrees with the

New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses the NWT renders it exactly the same way

And they don't have any more reason to do it then than Dave Hunt did Let's let's start taking this apart demonstrate all the errors here

This is not a questionable reading the reason that the vast majority of translations render this is simple exegesis and Though mr.

Hunt did not address this Paul I'm sorry

Luke uses the term in Luke 7 8 and there it is

For I also am a man placed under authority He used it in Acts 13 48 he used in Acts 15 to The brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others them should go up to Jerusalem.

He used it in Acts 22 10 Where it says there would be told of all that has been appointed for you to do and Acts 28 23

When they had set a day for Paul, none of those are translated as disposed

Secondly, mr. Hunt never deals with the fact that this is a periphrastic construction This is a periphrastic construction

I explained this in the book, but let's be honest and again This is not mean to say this Dave Hunt doesn't know what a periphrastic construction is and it's

Dave Hunt Who is casting doubt upon the clarity of Acts 13 48?

It's Dave Hunt who's saying that the Greek experts disagree here, but he doesn't give us any Greek experts

All he gives us is one he gives us Dean Alford he gives other people's interpretations He does not give us one person who argues the grammar and the lexical meanings the words not once Now it's interesting

He does make one reference To a Greek lexicon and I remember when

I first picked this up. I just I Just wanted to scream Because Remember what he read remember what he said and I invite all of you right to the brain call and ask mr.

Hunt about this The Greek word is tosso and has a variety of meanings and usages page 210

It is found eight times in a New Testament and none of them carries the meaning of a decree from God nor of something does

Unchangeable or eternal so there is no basis for signing that meaning here. That is circular argumentation Here's the here's the quote the

Liddell and Scott Creek Dictionary offers a number of alternate meanings But ordain or for ordain is not one of them

When my eyes fell on that I just rolled my eyes back And we have someone in in Chandler once while monogon and whenever the guys do something silly

She says monogon rolls her eyes, and so now the rest of us say you know now I roll her eyes and things like that.

It's sort of funny I guess you'd have to have a British sense of humor to get that but anyways Mmm CDS is in channel, and we have the other silly

Britain the other room so we can do British humor Anyways, I rolled my eyes, and there's a reason for that Liddell and Scott is not a coin a

Greek lexicon Liddell and Scott is not a coin a Greek lexicon if he's gonna make this argument

Then how about using a lexicon of the language? We're actually talking about would that but would that be helpful it would be helpful wouldn't it?

Let's go to Brown driver. You know the proper habits Hebrew. Let's go to be dag. Let's go to Bauer Donker aren't in Gingrich Why don't we use that?

Why don't we use something? That's actually about the New Testament? But I started thinking I thought well, okay, so Dave Hunt doesn't know what

Greek lexicons are that's makes sense he as he himself says it might as well be Chinese Well, then why is he quoting from one?

Why is he trying to make it look like he does? and then I went back to my room, and I had my my laptop with me and If you've got

Bible works 5 .0. You happen to have that Adele's got Greek lexicon. I looked it up and You know there's a lot of Greek there, and if you can't read

Greek that may be confusing to you, but if you go down to section three

Number two let me read it for you to a point or Dane order or prescribe

Let me read let me read mr.. Hunt again But or Dane or for Dane is not one of them

Liddell and Scott Greek lexicon number three number two to a point or Dane Hmm.

I guess we just didn't see that one there. Did we I guess we did not You say boy you're being mean to mr..

Hunt Mr.. Hunt was told over and over again don't put yourself in a position of being refuted like this because You don't have any way of defending yourself

He says were the scripture twisters. He says were the ones misrepresenting, but mr..

Hunt You got the wrong lexicon a and then you misrepresent it B, and that's not a good thing

Well I'm late for my break, and we need to take it because I need to Take a breath and continue on with acts 1348 we're talking about what love is this

Calvinism's misrepresentation of God or is it Dave Hunt's? Misrepresentation of Calvinism, that's what we're discovering.

We'll be right back And welcome back to dividing line.

My name is James white. We're looking at acts 1348 and Dave Hunt's errors concerning it I had just pointed out that while mr..

Hunt says the Liddell and Scott Greek lexicon, which is a classical not a coin a

Greek lexicon hence It would not be the first thing you would turn to in looking for meanings

But he says it does not give as the meaning ordain and yet It does section three number two to a point ordain order prescribe and interestingly enough it

Lists as one from xenophone it lists as one of the examples Ta ta ta mena which those of you who are looking at the

Greek realize it is likewise a In the very same form that one specifically they're perfect passive participle, but it's a different Different gender, but it is actually listed under Ordain as one of the meanings so you could in fact quite rightly cite

Liddell and Scott as Substantiating the meaning of the term as it's found in acts 1348

So what do we have then well? We have circular argumentation. We have the miss citation

Liddell and Scott then we have the citation of 1st Corinthians 1615 in the

King James Version King James Version why the King James Version because it says in for example new

American Standard now I urge you brother. You know the household Stephanus that they were the first fruits of Achaia and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the

Saints Well, that's nice, but folks. That's not how you determine meanings of words That is not a parallel to a paraphrastic construction in Acts 1348.

I Mean that that's this this isn't if someone used this kind of argumentation to argue against the

Trinity Mr.. Hunt would jump all over them and rightly so he wouldn't be able to prove

Why but he could go to people who could show him that and we would all recognize that it's horrific and bad

Argumentation, but that's what he's utilizing anyways Then he tries to say that the

King James is wrong rendering is due the Latin Vulgate well I'm sure the King James only like I hope

I Hope mr. Hunt Will point this out to mr.

Chambers Because you see mr. Chambers is a gale rippling or King James only person and he's endorsed the book

But would he agree that the King James is rendering is based upon the Latin Vulgate the corrupt

Latin Vulgate probably not Probably not no the

King James rendering does not come from the Latin Vulgate it happens to be perfectly right the new American stairs

Does not come from Latin Vulgate Dean Alford is the only person he can come up with who has said disposed to eternal life

Now notice There's two different renderings here, and mr. Hunt seemingly didn't catch this part remember

I stopped and said notice. He said many Greek experts. We are not told who they are I'd like some names

Please suggest the same idea here that the Gentiles had disposed themselves to believe and Alfred says disposed to eternal life those are two different things those are two different things

You see the only way you could do it is to say if you're going to completely misrepresent Luke's use of Tasso You're going to ignore the paraphrastic construction because and and see

I told Dave this But he doesn't listen this paraphrastic construction has as its tense meaning a pluperfect

That means that if you're going to use disposed that means and this is where Alford's error was

Alfred's wrong about this That the action of being disposed to eternal life had to precede this

So they had disposed themselves to eternal life before Paul preached to them

Can you imagine this? Why is it that all modern

English translations other than the New World Translation render it this way because that's what it means and Mr..

Hunt does a Tremendous job at trying to cast doubt upon the clarity of God's Word at this point, but he fails he fails and I can guarantee you

When we do this debate we're going to have a period of cross -examination on Acts 13 48, and I'm gonna ask mr.

Hunt mr. Hunt Why did the Holy Spirit of God have

Luke write this as a paraphrastic? Construction with a pluperfect meaning where he uses a perfect passive participle

With an imperfect form of I me How do you answer that mr. Hunt?

How dare you cast Dispersions upon the clarity of the text of Scripture mr.

Hunt How do you do that, that's what the New World Translation does not what the text of the

Word of God does Well Clearly there are differences of opinion

He says concerning the technical considerations of the Greek which only the experts are competent to discuss then why are you discussing them mr.

Hunt? Why are you discussing them? Why are you presenting this? I don't know of anyone

Dean Alford doesn't bother to deal with paraphrastic constructions He doesn't he doesn't deal with what the tense meaning of a paraphrastic construction is in his commentary

You know why because he can't there isn't any question about it

When you have to come up with the rendering that no one But the New World Translation has ever put into print as an actual rendering of an edition of the

Bible that should tell you something It did not tell mr.

Hunt why? blinded by tradition Blinded by tradition

So in light of all that information isn't it amazing to read those last few sentences again That meaning is at least allowable from the word

Tasso not as Luke uses it and not in a paraphrastic Construction and it seems to be demanded by the context.

It is not why not accept it because to do so would undermine Calvinism We can find no other reason.

I remember I wrote to mr. Hunt. I sent him the tapes where I discussed acts 1348

I discussed his errant rendering of it as disposed. He had this information before him and he still says the things that he says here as I said to Dave Hunt, I believe that Christian authors have a responsibility to the truth first and foremost

And that's why you should not write this book. Mr. Hunt because you are not in a position to do so That's all there is to it

Am I passionate about that? You better believe it when you start telling me when I start seeing people that I believe are

Christians And that's why I hold he and Norm Geisler to a higher standard. I expect this out of others

I expect this out of unbelievers. I don't expect it out of fellow believers On any other subject if it was on the

Trinity if it was on the Resurrection Dave Hunt would catch these things

And he'd say that's wrong but when it comes to God's freedom and man's creaturely responsibilities before God all of a sudden the idol of free will pops up and you can actually get

Believers to start attacking the clarity of God's Word that should not be

That simply should not be my my my page 215 as a staunch

Calvinist white informs us. Why is one man raised to eternal life? No left to eternal destruction. It is according to the kind intention of his will

So it is God's kindnesses causes him to damn so many we are astounded at such a concept That's just a repeat of something was said before But have you noticed something?

This Happened with with with George Bryson and I I'm I keep writing the folks over in California You know, we really need the tapes really need the tapes.

Come on. We need the tapes and it's the tapes Because we want to be able to play sections this but mr Bryson really believed this was very clear in his writing in the

CRI Journal and then in the debate all he had to do was to Quote John Calvin saying things like that.

Everybody's just Google Oh Wow, that's terrible

It didn't work that way you see he's quoting me on Ephesians chapter 1 and if you go to Ephesians chapter 1 and Allow the text to speak for itself.

That's what it says and Folks who are in love with God's Word and in obedience to it rather than their traditions are gonna let the word say what the word says now

Let me jump over cuz it's already 13 after we're gonna run out of time. I won't make sure to get this one

Page 333 Calvinism is best foot forward now notice.

This doesn't even come up until way late in the book and there's a reason for that Let me read this section to you

There's this there's this whole section on on John 6 and Of course, what's what's the argument in John 6 and John 6 44?

It's real easy. He just jumps over John 12 32 assumes a interpretation of John 12 32

Then You know just dismisses it doesn't doesn't deal with any of the exegesis of John 6 that's offered and In the

Potter's freedom, but here's here's section page 333 The Calvinist best foot forward this book is not intended to win a purely intellectual debate

We were defending our God's honor and character notice our God's honor and character in The process great care has been taken not to miss misunderstand

Calvinism or to misjudge its proponents I'm sorry, Dave. I know you may feel you put out an effort

But every Calvinist I've talked to who tried to work with you on this subject knows better So let's carefully consider whites arguments as he develops them for the context

John 6 37 to 45 a scripture which he calls the clearest exposition of what critics call extreme

Calvinism actually that was just Norm Geisler in Examining whites and other Calvinist methods of interpretation one often finds eisegesis

Forcing the text to say what it doesn't say in order to fit their theories white rights And then you have a quotation all sorts of ellipses.

It doesn't even make a whole lot of sense the way it's quoted But let me just give it to you the way he's he hasn't cited

Literally Jesus says no man is able to come to me These are words of incapacity and they are placed in a universal context all men lack the ability to come to Christ in of themselves

That is Paul's dead in sin Ephesians 2 1 and unable to please God Romans 8 8 it is the reformed doctrine of total depravity man's inability here being taught by the

Lord who knows the hearts of all men all Men would be left in the hopeless position of unable to come unless God acts and he does by drawing some

But not all men unto Christ and that's some but not all is put into Into brackets and I need to double -check what that's actually

Therefore no man can will to come to Christ outside of this divine drawing reform scholars assert that the ones who are drawn are the

Ones who are given by the Father to the Son ie the elect and if you actually quoted all of it

That's where I would go back to John 637 and prove that Obviously then it cannot be asserted that the Father is drawing every single individual human being for universalism

Everyone is saved would be the result for all who are drawn are likewise raised up at the last day

Well, at least a part of it got quoted Mr. Hunt comments. We're in this passage

Just Jesus mentioned total depravity or dead in sin or incapacity or unable to please

God or anything about an elect That's the first sentence The first response to all that argumentation

John 6 is where in this passage. Did Jesus mention total depravity? When he says no man is able because of course that comes from total depravity dead in sin that would come to the same thing incapacity

No, man is able Who do not I in Greek Dave that means unable?

Is that incapacity or unable to please God? Well, I quoted Romans 8 8 at that point

That's where that came from or anything about an elect Well, what I said was those in John 637 all the

Father gives me will come to me. That's the elect That's what I said. I didn't say Jesus used those words this kind of argumentation would be like quoting

Matthew 28 19 through 20 and a Jehovah's Witness going. I didn't see the word Trinity in there

I didn't see the word hypostasis or hypostatic Union in there. You're you're you're engaging in eisegesis

No, just let what I said stand on its own None of these

Calvinistic theories is there nor is any part of tulip even implied you hear that folks

There is no part of tulip even implied in John 637 through 44 according to Dave Hunt Not even implied

Folks that's not even honest Even even You know our minions recognize at least that they have to deal with the passage

Wow And he goes on none of these Calvinistic theories is there nor is any part of tulip even implied

Jesus does not say the drawing must be limited to The elect or universalism would be the result or the drawing is either irresistible or unconditional

Dave. I Just pointed out in the text that you quoted That all who are drawn by the father to the son are raised up on the last day

The him who is drawn is the him who is raised up now if y 'all go back and listen to the discussion with Mr.

Hunt on Kxcg and I can't achieve kpxq that's on the website

I Explained that then too, and the problem is he didn't get then

Is it is it my fault? Was I not clear or is it possible is?

It possible it possibly Maybe mr. Hunt is so Committed to his tradition

That anything that doesn't fit within the narrow confines of that tradition Simply is not heard

Can't be therefore. I'm not gonna listen to that. I'm not gonna listen to what you say

The text is right there, but Dave Hunt says up nothing about Calvinism there We all know differently

Of course my hope is My hope is that a person who really is thinking about these things who picks up this book

Will a go get the potter's freedom and see that's what I really said and be even reading what

I said as It's quoted by mr. Hunt They'll go wait a minute

David there There is a lot there that seems to be and that day that that's that's not good response to say well

There's the word total depravity doesn't appear here if it says that no man is able

That's exactly what he's talking about so that that's not really an answer is it That's my hope my hope of course is is that just as with chosen but free a

Book that hopelessly confused the issue By giving a response we clarified the issue and there have been many people

I had a man come up to me at the debate with George Bryson George Bryson's arguments are very much parallel with Dave Hunt's and he said to me after the debate was over he said

I hated Calvinism and Then I read your book and I read on Romans 9 and of course what does

Dave do with Romans 9 well pretty much? You know what can Armenians do Pretty much takes the national thing where you can fit nations in and then when it gets down to Pharaoh and stuff where he has

To recognize that it has to do with persons and not with just nations Tries to use the foreknowledge argument does he respond to any of the?

Lexical information Given well believe it or not. Yeah, sort of Let me let me note it here because some of you're gonna go you've got to be kidding me

Yeah, there's there's Romans 9 and It says things like this there is nothing in Romans 9 20 24 to indicate the

God the Potter causes anyone to be or to do evil And you're all sitting there going Where did we say otherwise, but remember he just simply

Well this this gives an excellent example Any of you who have looked at the justification of God by John Piper?

Recognize it's a pretty complex book, and there's reason for that it was his doctoral dissertation and doctoral dissertations are well they tend to be fairly complex at times and So that's what it was listen to what is on page 267

One wonders why Piper flooded the justification of God with Greek and Hebrew words and whose and those alphabets without the

English equivalents Which authors usually supply? Thus his book can be fully understood only by Greek and Hebrew scholars while other readers must take his word for what he says

Well Dave that's the nature of doctoral dissertations, I'm sorry, but That's just the nature of things you deal with the original languages.

That's sort of how it functions, but um Basically what he does is I'm also on page 267.

I'm accused of ducking something when God God hardened Pharaoh's heart to further his purposes for Israel in Egypt to manifest his power more fully and Specifically to complete his judgment upon the gods of Egypt He was in fact only helping

Pharaoh to do what the tyrant wanted to do At the very outset when he sent Moses to Egypt God declared

I am sure the king of Egypt will not let you go Exodus 319 This was Pharaoh's disposition from the very beginning before a word was said about God hardening his heart

Yet Calvinists are almost unanimous in their avoidance of this scripture Passing it by they begin their comments with Exodus 421

I will harden his heart that he shall not let the people go like the others pink ignores 319 and writes did not

God Harden his heart before the plagues were sent upon Egypt see Exodus 421 white to avoid 319 and he also uses 421 as foundational so does

Piper in Building his lengthy argument concerning the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. He relies heavily upon 421 Well, there's a little problem

Dave that doesn't use the term hardened over there in chapter 3 Are you saying that the hardening of his heart was based upon God knowing something about Pharaoh But even when you go over to 319, it doesn't help you out much at all either

Dave 319 but I know the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him.

Oh, wait a minute What about Pharaoh's free will? Compels him

I Thought God didn't use compulsion 320 so I'll stretch out my hand and strike the

Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them after that He will let you go. Well, how do you know that God?

Well, God just looks into the future and he knows no, it's because God is sovereign and I will make the

Egyptians verse 21 Favorably disposed toward this people so that when you leave you will not go empty -handed

Well, wait a minute How could God make Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people of Israel?

He's playing with their free will Oh No Folks, I'm sorry.

Maybe I shouldn't Go. Oh, no But he didn't even quote all of 319 that says unless a mighty hand compels him that's the consistency of Arminian argumentation a part of a passage here.

Let's ignore the exegesis. Let's ignore the original languages All in the service of The idol of free will

My goodness, it's all over the place absolutely all over the place

Well, we're out of time for this program. So What's my summary statement?

Well? God has a purpose in everything and evidently

God has a purpose in Having Dave hunt write this book. I Hope part of it

Obviously in the final analysis is to bring honor and glory to himself. It will resound was honor and glory and Just as chosen but free did through its refutation

This which is a number of notches below Norm Geisler's work as far as having any meaningful argumentation to it

We'll do the same thing but sadly it seems to be It's seems to be the way to bring honor and glory to God through this is to demonstrate the danger of being blinded by your tradition

Dave hunt doesn't believe he has traditions. He does it has caused him to suggest for example a

Translation of Acts 1348 that's found only in the New World translation of Jehovah's Witnesses What would cause someone to go that far?

It would cause someone to go that far Because they are so deeply entrenched in Their own tradition and you can be an evangelical and be just as absolutely positively blinded to the authority of tradition in your life as any

Roman Catholic and That's what we have here All of us have our traditions

But those who know they have their traditions are then in a position to be able to examine those traditions in the light of Scripture And that's what this book should teach us

Should teach us to be fair in our research He's not fair with Augustine or Calvin in any way shape or form doesn't seem to understand the difference between the

Dauntess controversy in the plaguing controversy and all the rest that stuff and we can try to Get into some of those things

I hope some of the folks who like to read and write history will respond to some of those elements because there's much to be said

But my biggest concern is of course that it will It will cause people to ask the same questions over and over again

My hope is of course that since there are answers to every single one of these objections That mr. Hunt brings up that we will be very quick and ready to provide them and that as a result many people who otherwise would never have been

Exposed to the truth the doctrines of grace will just as with the Potter's freedom come To recognize those things and the role that they play in our evangelism and in the church

And and everything else that's obviously what I hope will take place mr. Hunt Wonderful man, very personable

But you're wrong and what you've done in this book. You've been told that before you chose to go ahead with it.

Okay, mr Hunt let's debate Friday night Saturday morning

Saturday night lots of cross -examination Moderated so that we can't avoid the passages so we can't avoid the issue that we can't just run off someplace else

We have to answer the direct questions Let's put the video cameras up Let's make sure we've got the audio tape running as a backup and let's do the debate and let's distribute it

Let's let's let's say right up front that it will be offered on the front page of Alpha -Omega ministries and the

Berean call both together Let's make an agreement right up front That we will make sure that this is made available to the widest possible audience

Okay That's what we need to do and mr.

Hunt. I really really really ask that you be able to very quickly I want to very quickly give to people the

Information as to when this is going to be let's set a date November December, let's set a date right now to be able to do it and Make that tape available.

Sorry, we didn't take phone calls today But we barely had time to get through Just the things that I had marked and that was a very very quick run through its 436 pages long

But I hope that was useful to you and so let's Press on with getting this debate set up because I think those of you listening on the dividing line

You'd like to hear that you'd like to see that and I think those people who are going to be

Confused about Dave hunt is saying need to hear it as well. Thanks for listening today We'll talk to you next week here on the dividing line

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 0 3 1 8 or write us at P .o.

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 you can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks