Response to Dave Hunt on Reformed Theology, Part 2 of 3, Election

Everything around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now, it's 602 -973 -4602 or toll -free across the

United States It's 1 -866 -854 -6763 And now with today's topic here is

James White And good afternoon and welcome to the dividing line today live from Phoenix, Arizona where it is currently

Very nice and balmy 108 degrees on the way to 112 degrees today yes, it is possible to live in the desert because we have air conditioning going and as long as the power stays on all

Will you well if the air conditioning stops? I'm leaving Anyways, we are continuing our response this week to Dave Hunt's Presentation February of this year reformed theology reviewed in the light of Scripture.

I have put together what I think is a telling Segment of audio here in the next segment.

I'm going to play for you. You will hear first what mr Hunt said to me in August of last year on kpxq

Regarding the subject of Calvinism and the writings the Reformers that will immediately move into Something that mr.

Hunt said in the May 19th 2001 edition of His radio program from the

Berean call and I think the contrast of the two is quite interesting

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, I Think we need to remind ourselves what was just said I think I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves

Calvinists now, mr. Hunt is now claiming to know more about Calvinism Having started studying in August of last year than most of us who have been studying for five ten fifteen twenty years

As we have been reviewing what mr. Hunt is saying Concerning Calvinism and concerning the doctrines of grace.

We have discovered a consistent pattern. However of utter misrepresentation Which I do not believe is purposeful.

I Just do not believe that. Mr. Hunt knows what he's talking about. It is not possible to Master the literature just the basic literature that is available

In that period of time I don't care how brilliant mr. Hunt believes himself to be it

Simply is not possible. And as we go through the rest of what?

Mr. Hunt says in our presentation today. We will see a consistent pattern of misrepresentation of the reform position that comes from ignorance of The issues mr

Hunt I believe has concluded that he does know what it's what Calvinism is all about That he does know what the position is and he simply isn't opened any correction

I'm not the only one who's tried but that just simply is what is going on and since It is fascinating those in the chat channel know that last week while discussing

Dave Hunt's attack upon for example the deadness of man and sin Dave went after the total depravity and he said well, you know

We can't really be dead in sin because Romans chapter 6 verse 2 says that we're that we're

Dead in thing because we're dead to sin was I mean that no one can choose to sin someone this week sent me an email and I Responded by pointing out that actually the passage does not say that we are

Dead to sin, but that we died to sin in Romans 6 and Romans 6 11 It says that we are to reckon ourselves or consider ourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God.

It's a mindset It is what we're going to allow to rule in our life not sin, but God's life.

It's a completely different context But this kind of assertions being made by mr. Hunt and while we're responding to that in the program we have a

Jehovah's Witness in the channel who is Defending the same position as hunt and we have a

Mormon calling in on the air Defending the same position as Dave Hunt Now you're saying oh, well, that's that's guilt by association.

No, it's recognizing that the arguments put forward by Dave Hunt are the same arguments put forward by Robertson Janice a

Roman Catholic apologist and the arguments put forward by Robertson Janice are the same arguments that were put forward

By Richard Hopkins a Mormon apologist who I debated on this subject in April of this year

And I just realized we haven't yet gotten those tapes. Have we? I think you have to remind somebody about that and Those are the same arguments used by Norman Geisler and those the same arguments used by Jehovah's Witnesses and around around it goes why?

because of the fact that That we are recognizing here the difference between a

God -centered theology where God is the one who saves and saves perfectly and all of the other viewpoints that are out there that share one thing in common and That is they will not allow

God to be sovereign in the matter of salvation man must be Sovereign in the matter of salvation.

That's what the issue is. And that's why the

The unity can exist between groups that believe very very different things because on this issue

They believe the same thing that man is ultimately in control

That is the issue that we are looking at now. We looked last week at mr

Hunt saying that the sovereignty of God and the fact that to Christ died Effectively and efficiently in the place of his elect people is a libel on the character of God Unfortunately, I can't give you a whole lot of Mr.

Hunt's interpretation of the key Passages, I wish that I could

But they're just simply not there. He doesn't address John chapter 6 He doesn't he just barely touches on Romans 8 and we'll be looking at that in a moment

But he does at least touch upon Ephesians chapter 1 let's listen to what he says here, but it was an overemphasis upon sovereignty we just read in Ephesians 1 11 for example, this would be one of the strong scriptures of the

Reformed people Calvinists It says in whom also we have obtained an inheritance being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things

After the counsel of his own will now We have to read the

Bible with some understanding Does that say that everything that happens on this on this earth is

God's will? It doesn't say he works all things according to his will

Otherwise, why would Jesus ask us to pray thy kingdom come thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven if God's will is already being done on this earth

Why would we pray for God's will to be done and if this is God's will everything that happens on this earth is

God's will Let me pause it right there just to answer that particular point. Then I'll continue on with it

Are Jesus's words that we are to pray thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven a refutation of the clear meaning

Of Ephesians 1 11 that tells us that God does work all things after the counsel of his will

Well, let's think about that for just a minute What should we pray that God's will not be done is the assertion?

Well if God's in control, then we shouldn't pray at all Isn't that what's really being said and more to the point?

Why in the world would we pray that God's will be done if he can't do it?

You see we are to pray in accordance with God's truth and it is our desire that God's perfect will be done

It is our desire that Evil be done away with it's our desire that he that he subdue his enemies under his feet so on so forth

But we recognize that his decree involves the existence of evil in this world.

We'll see that. Mr. Hunt simply has not Thought through his theology at this point, but I continue on then he must be responsible for murder and rape and plunder and war

And in fact, that's what the Calvinist teaches That's what John Calvin taught that's what

Augustine taught and if I can just find a a quick quote here This is a leading

Calvinist. You would get his book today. It's called the five points of Calvinism Edwin H.

Palmer's his name this book in fact was recommended to me by Calvinists as one of the best expressions of what

Calvinism teaches He says quote God is in back of everything He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen

He has foreordained everything after the counsel of his will Ephesians 1 11 the moving of a finger the mistake of a typist even sin

So God is behind sin. God is the one that causes sin It's all in his will he has foreordained this

The name AW pink would be familiar to many of you who writes on the sovereignty of God He says quote

God foreordains everything that comes to pass God initiates all things regulates all things now.

There's a difference between working all things according to his will What does it say? according to the counsel of his will so the counsel of his will

Could allow people to have the power of choice Could allow people to sin

Could allow Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit Although he didn't want them to he told them not to but he gave them the freedom to decide for themselves

That's the difference between the counsel of his will and working everything according to his will now one day everything will be according to his will

But that's yet in the future now, of course the question that I immediately have to ask is

Mr. Hunt, where do you get this? Interpretation of the counsel of his will in Ephesians 1 11

You you make a specific assertion that there's a difference between His will and the counsel of his will

Have you looked up the word counsel? Do you know what it is? in the

New American Standard Bible, it is according to his Purpose who works all things after the counsel of his will.

So what is that counsel? What does that term mean? Where does this? idea that well this opens up the idea of of of Human beings having autonomous free will and and there being no

Decree of God, where does that come from? The Greek term is bullae

And it means purpose Intention plan decision it is

God's decree that comes from his will There's nothing in the term that even begins to suggest in any way shape or form

The Interpretation that mr. Hunt has attached to the word Why should we take that as having any meaning?

We're not given any basis for it That's the kind of lack of exegetical insight that we are offered throughout this entire thing and now

There's another one coming up. In fact, I'll just go ahead and and Play this one and then make my comments based upon what mr.

Hunt says here because he gets it a little bit It gets a little bit more strong in his comments here. Well, in fact, this is from Calvin himself

Now God arranges all things if God merely foresaw human events and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure

There might be room for agitating the question how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity

But since he has decreed that they are to so happen. It is clear that all events take place by his sovereign

Appointment, would you say that the snatching of a purse? the raping of a woman the robbing of a bank all things

Are according to God's sovereign appointment that he has determined everything. This is what

Calvin taught Well, mr. Hunt is not only what Calvin taught is what Augustine taught and it's what the Bible teaches

In fact, I have to wonder why you don't believe it since the Bible teaches. It's so plainly

Throughout pages and pages you you quoted from pink. You've read the sovereignty of God You've seen the passages that clearly teach

God's absolute sovereignty in all things He is working out of his decree. You've read the passages like Psalm 135 6 you've seen

Psalm 115. You've seen these passages Why don't you believe them? Listen again?

What said would you say that the snatching of a purse? the raping of a woman the robbing of a bank all things

Are according to God's sovereign appointment that he has determined everything This is what

Calvin taught. Well, mr. Hunt if you don't believe that then you believe in chance

You believe in that which is outside of God's control. You believe that there are things that have no purpose or meaning

You talk about the snatching of a purse Could not the snatching of a purse have tremendous impact upon not only a person's destiny

But upon the proclamation of the gospel What what if a woman's purse were to be snatched which keeps her from making appointment where she could have shared the gospel

Someone and that person doesn't get saved as a result. Is that outside of God's control?

The raping of a woman. What if the result of that violent act is a next world leader is the next great theologian

Mr. Hunt, don't you realize that by dodging the purpose of God and his decree you're making even tragedies purposeless

How can you look at the rape victim and quote Romans 828? The very foundation of Romans 828

God will cause all things to work together for the good Not he's gonna come along and try to put salve on something when we run into a terrible horrible tragedy

The only way to make sense of Romans 828 is to recognize God's sovereign decree

This was known from the very beginning back in Genesis 50 Joseph recognized That he was sold into slavery by God's decree now that was a sinful thing that his brothers did

But it was God's decree That brought about him going into Egypt so they could be so he could save the life of his family

Remember his words. He said you meant this for evil God meant it for good

You see once you start attacking God's sovereignty once you start mocking God's sovereignty and you don't think this through and you stand as a teacher before God's people

You make mistakes That rob God of his glory This is important stuff

This is vital stuff. You don't mock it in the way that it is being treated in this particular passage now it gets worse in Fact in this next section.

I'll be perfectly honest with you. You're going to be amazed You are simply going to be amazed at what mr.

Hunt says Because here in this next section Listen carefully to it.

You need to understand What is said is that adoption into the family of God is a special blessing and that nowhere does the

Bible say that Predestination election or choosing is unto salvation. It's only under special blessings

Listen to what's said. We had something about the predestination and Election in this and choosing which is election verse 4 go back to it

According as he hath chosen us in him before that now you understand that These epistles were written to Christians So naturally he's talking to Christians He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world

That we should be saved. Is that what it says? Doesn't say that That we should be what holy and without blame before him in love

Having predestinated us unto salvation No having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ himself

So as we're talking about this in the interim Never do you find election? predestination the choosing of God for Salvation it is for blessings that God has marked out for those that he foreknew

Would respond to the gospel now listen to what's said there this this is truly amazing

What we're being asked to believe without any evidence being given to us is that the

Predestination of God is to special blessings not to salvation so holiness and adoption are special blessings

That are not a part of salvation Could someone look at Romans chapter 8 and tell me that it's only some

Christians that are adopted into the family of God Adoption is not a special blessing.

It is part and parcel of the ordo salutis How can someone say

That well, he chose us to be holy, but that just means that you can be a Christian, but not really holy

He chose us unto the adoption, but but that's just something some Christians get Listen to this again.

We have whoa whoa back down here. Thank you very much Never do you find election? predestination the choosing of God for Salvation do you hear that?

It's never for salvation and yet second

Thessalonians 2 13 says But we should always give thanks to God for you brother and be loved by the

Lord because God has chosen you from the beginning for Salvation through sanctification by the

Spirit and faith in the truth Never do you find election?

predestination the choosing of God for Salvation second

Thessalonians 2 13 seems to have missed Mr.

Hunt's review of This thorough review that makes him more of an expert remember mr.

Hunt claimed it. I'm not the one who claimed it He's one who claims to be more of an expert on Calvinism today Than 90 % of Calvinists and the majority of those who call themselves

Calvinist it is for blessings That God has marked out for those that he foreknew would respond to the gospel now where it is for knowledge show up in Ephesians 1 and When will mr.

Hunt deal with the extensive refutation of that very

Misuse of Progonosco that is found in the potter's freedom that I sent to him in August of last year

Mr. Hunt you cannot use the old saw of foreknowledge until You respond to the information that is found in the very books you claim to have mastered

If you cannot respond to the information, then you cannot use that old saw

For knowledge does not mean God looks down the corridors of time Mr. Hunt uses this well

This is how God is sovereign because you see he's eternal and he's outside the realm of time Well, does that mean that what happens at a time is outside of his decree?

He's just the passive observer outside Do we not realize what that means?

Why is it that people are so opposed to God's Absolute freedom that they will sacrifice his very character

To safeguard the alleged free will of the creature It is an amazing thing to see it truly is

Now he does get close to Romans chapter 8 But listen to this

I Can't call it a discussion but listen to this in Romans chapter 8 so For example, if you will just hold your finger here for a minute and go to Romans chapter 8

Verse 29 For whom he did foreknow He also did predestinate to salvation no

Predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son now you could be saved God could forgive your sins

You could be in heaven and not Be conformed to the image of his son.

Do you understand what I'm saying? These are special blessings that God marked out for the redeemed

But never does he say that some are chosen to salvation and some are chosen to Damnation now, we've already heard that mr.

Hunt is completely wrong when he says that never do we read That some are chosen to salvation.

We saw it in 2nd Thessalonians 2 13 But I want you to hear what is being said here

These are special blessings Being conformed to the image of Christ is a special blessing

Not all Christians are conformed to the image of Christ mr. Hunt is telling us folks.

Do you hear that? Do you hear what's being said let's let's look back at Romans chapter 8 and We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love

God all things God causes all things to work together. But how can he do that if he is merely observing from the outside?

God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God Well, you mean he's not causing all things to work to good for those who don't love

God. Oh That's not fair. We're told No, God is free

God doesn't have to do any of this See mr. Hunt seems to believe that if God's Mercy is gonna be mercy then it cannot be free mercy if it's gonna be grace

It cannot be free grace. God can have no choice. It must be peanut butter grace It must merely be spread evenly over everybody

That's not the guy of the Bible When the high priest went into The inner sanctuary of the temple a day of Yom Kippur in the nation of Israel 300 years before the

Lord Jesus was born that offering was not for the Egyptians That offering was not for the

Babylonians There was particularity back then and it remains the same today as well

God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God to who to those who are called according to his purpose

And they are not called because they love God. We love him because he first loved us

Those who are the called According to his purpose not our purpose not our free will

Mr. Hunt doesn't even touch these instead. He says well you see in verse 29

It says for those whom he foreknew. I'm probably just assuming the errant meaning of foreknow

He also predestined to become conformed the image of his son and see that's just a special blessing Really?

Let's follow the chain For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to become conformed the image of his sons that he would be the firstborn among many brethren and These whom he predestined he also called and these whom he called he also justified and these whom he justified he also glorified.

Folks if we take Dave Hunt's logic here then calling and Justification and glorification are all special blessings that not all

Christians experience That's simply wrong Certainly he can't have thought this through and You see the reason that this is so amazing to me is

I know that there are people Who care for Dave Hunt who sat him down said

Dave you don't understand You've you've gone beyond where you need to go here

Dave. You don't understand you got to stop and he won't do it and I wish

I have prayed That he would stop that he would not do this that he would not embarrass himself this way

But now that he's doing it folks, it's simply sentimentality or as Dave Hunt himself uses the term sloppy agape

To let someone Misteach the Word of God on these vitally important issues no matter how nice a guy he may be well

If predestination is only to special blessings Then calling and justification and glorification are just special blessings

Obviously that is a gross misinterpretation of Romans chapter 8 Well, I'm gonna take a break and we're gonna come right back and continue hearing these interpretations and hope to correct

The misunderstandings of Dave Hunt in regards to reform theology. We'll be right back

And welcome back to the dividing line. My name is James White and we are responding to Dave Hunt and His review of reform theology so far

However, we have discovered that though Dave does claim and I suppose if you're just a tuning in I should

I should Remind us. I think I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves

Calvinists, that's that's Dave's own claim. He's he's put it out there. So Since he's making the claim we are doing the examination and so far we've discovered that Dave does not know

Calvinism and he has a straw man view of it. Let's continue on with this next segment.

Now. We're talking about the elect Election that term is used in a number of ways

There are elect angels the Bible refers to Second and third John are written to the elect lady

Jesus is called the elect Israel is called mine elect

Never do I find in the Bible that the word elect is used for a certain group that God has for ordained to be saved in Distinction to all the rest of the world who will not be saved now if you have some some verses that will say that Well, I do

Dave for example the ones you ignored in Romans chapter 8 verses 29 through 30

All of Romans chapter 9 and then Paul says almost in passing 2nd

Timothy 2 10 for this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen the

NIV renders that the elect Eclectus is the Greek term that is used there

So they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory who are these elect ones

Dave Who are these that are called the elect in 2nd Timothy 2 10?

I would like to know who they are, but we don't get any Examination of who these individuals are

In the materials that I have examined from mr. Hunt so far unfortunately, hopefully that will be in the

In the book that comes out now last week I did play this next one and I Didn't really go through it the way that that I wanted to go through it and I've got a lot of material to cover but I felt like I was a little bit too shallow in my

In my working through this this next particular quote and so I'm gonna go ahead And I'm gonna go ahead and play it again and I want to try to walk through it a little more

Carefully this time to provide a full refutation of what is being said by.

Mr. Hunt. This is in reference to his unique interpretation of acts 1348 even if you could find

Some verses there are some difficult verses for example acts 1348 premier verse for the

Communists And when the Gentiles acts 1348 when the Gentiles heard this

They were glad and glorified the word of the Lord and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed

Whoa, that sounds like Are you gonna get around that one? Well, this comes out of the

Latin Vulgate but Greek words and I know nothing about Greek Greek words have you look it up in your concordance?

You'll find a number of possible meanings, right? possible uses for Many Greek words and for this one, there are many uses ordained is one possible interpretation but another place in the

Bible is translated addicted themselves to they Addicted themselves to the ministry of the gospel

There are different words that can be used now, which one would we use here?

Looking at the context go back to verse 46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said it was necessary that the

Word of God should first have been spoken to you but seeing you put it from you and Judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life.

No, we turn to the Gentiles There were Jews when they heard the word They rejected it.

It wasn't something that they wanted and Then he goes to the Gentiles and verse 48 says then as many of the

Gentiles and the proper Reading would really be who were disposed who in contrast to the

Jews Consider themselves. They don't want this but the but the

Gentiles who said we want this They believed And I think the context makes it fairly clear.

But anyway, we we'll have to have to move on Well, I wish he hadn't moved on but Acts 13 48

I I wanted to spend a little time on this because I think this is an excellent example of Why those who stand to teach are held to a higher standard

I Think this is an excellent example of What happens when you?

engage in surface -level Bible study You just heard. Mr. Hunt say well if you look the word up in your concordance now,

I realize that Much light can be gained From looking up a word in a concordance

But there's a little bit of a problem here You see when you look up a word in a concordance you are now isolating it from the context in which it is originally used and Especially in Acts 13 48

This leads you astray Last week we pointed out that they were appointed to eternal life

Appears in the King James Version the ASV the New King James the NIV the NRSV New American Standard the

New Living Translation the New English Translation Etc. Etc. Mr. Hunt does not explain to us why?

the vast majority in fact all of them that I know of of Conservative Bible translations say they were appointed and the reason is that that Dave as he says knows nothing about Greek Well, if he knows nothing about Greek then may

I suggest that he just way overstepped his bounds to suggest to us an

Alternative translation when he doesn't know the language You see

The particular Greek term that is used here that he's looking up.

It's the Greek term Tasso and Tasso is used only a handful of times in the

New Testament It's used about eight times and it's used four times in the book of Acts Acts 13 48 15 to 22 10 and 28 23

The problem here is you simply cannot deal with this word By looking up other uses of it elsewhere in the

New Testament, and there's a reason for that you see words exist in contexts and they exist in phrases and What Dave couldn't possibly know unless he was willing to go talk to someone is

That in this particular passage the word Tasso appears as In a particular form here.

It is a perfect passive Participle and It is used in a phrase with a word in front of it

It is the imperfect active form of the verb. I mean a son a son tetog menoi is the phrase and And If he were to go and talk with a an expert in the language if you're to go to talk with someone

Who teaches a language maybe look it up in Dan Wallace's Greek grammar beyond the basics, whatever it might be

He would discover that this particular word this particular phrase,

I'm sorry this paraphrastic construction has a particular meaning and When the finite verb is in the imperfect form and the participle is in the perfect form the tense

Equivalent of the paraphrastic construction is in the pluperfect. Now if I lost you that's fine.

The simple fact matter is that is the meaning of the phrase It is a pluperfect

They had been appointed. It's a past tense Mr.

Hunt's interpretation is that they in essence appointed themselves. They were disposed There was something about them that disposed them to belief but that's not the meaning of A paraphrastic construction that has the tense meaning of a pluperfect with the word taso

So, mr. Hunt has redefined words He himself in sewing so doing so says that he is ignorant of the language

So, mr. Hunt why go against all the translations you yourself use or is it because the fact that you don't like what the passage says you disagree with what it teaches and Yet you're the one who says that Calvinists have to constantly redefine the language

No Calvinists don't have to redefine the language We can allow the language to say exactly what the language says it doesn't have to be redefined at all

It's only when mr. Hunt you misunderstand What Calvinists believe that you then think we are redefining the language acts 1348

Simply does not allow for mr. Hunt's Retranslation of the passage

Now this next one we get a bunch of passages thrown out but notice how

Through this entire section No Exegesis of the passages is offered.

They are simply cited as if it's just automatic. They mean What Dave hunt thinks they mean?

If he's read all these books if he's read the Potter's freedom Calvin if he's read Spencer if he's read any of these books

Then don't you think he needs to offer an exegetical defense knowing how we interpret them well, here's what he has to say and not others now in order to Justify that from the scriptures we have to change the meaning of some common words

When it says God so loved the world world doesn't mean well It means the elect in first John chapter 2 verse 2 where it says he is the propitiation for our sins

Surely that would be the elect to say and not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world

Well, what are you going to do there? well World there means of the elect to whom

John wasn't writing You see our sins. That's the elect to whom he's writing but world means the elect to whom he's not writing now

I think that's straining pretty hard When Paul writes to Timothy and he says he is the

Savior of all men especially of those who believe When he says he is not willing that any should perish he wants all to come to the knowledge

That means any of the elect He wants all of the elect So now we have to change the means when

Jesus says if any man thirsts let him come into me and drink It sounds like it's an invitation.

I hope That anyone who does understand the Reformed position knows for example, the last words of mr.

Hunt demonstrate that he doesn't Jesus says anyone who thirsts Anyone who's weary come to me and mr.

Hunt honestly think that's contradictory to the Reformed position. Mr. Hunt it isn't It is not

You see to recognize Our inability our depravity our spiritual death the fact that we are enemies to God Is not to in any way shape or form make these passages meaningless you assume

That because Jesus says come to me That means he does not have to raise us to spiritual life to be able to do that You assume we have the ability

Who is going to respond to that mr. Hunt Is the enemy of God who hates

God is the one with the stony heart Going to respond to those words of love from Jesus.

Is that what you found in your ministry? Why does God have to take out a stony heart and give us a heart of flesh because it's only the heart of flesh

That responds those invitations How can you say those are contradictory does the dead man even know he's thirsty does the dead man even know he's weary Until we have been given spiritual life we do not even recognize the depth of our sin other passages recited

John 3 16 we've already dealt with mr. Hunt just assumes Ignoring the context ignoring the very fact the passage itself

Says so that the ones believing he inserts a meaning into the word whosoever that is not supported by the

Greek He cannot defend it. He goes over to first John 2 to loves take shots at particular redemption

He says see the whole world. They have to say it's the elect. Well, what is being said? Mr. Hunt? I'm gonna hold off on that one because he makes at the at the end of his at the end of his presentation

He starts talking about to tell us die. It's paid in full. Well, mr. Hunt, is it is it?

If he's the propitiation for the sins of every single Individual in the world then mr.

Hunt upon what basis will anyone be punished Oh unbelief unbelief isn't a sin. I Sure.

Hope Jesus bore my unbelief Because if he didn't I'm in big trouble

He quotes 2nd Peter 3 9 does not even deal With the exegesis that is offered in the potter's freedom just laughs it off That's why last week and I'll repeat it again this week

Challenge Dave hunt to a full debate. Let's air these issues. He says on his own radio program

Hey, we we should have the right to air these things out All right, let's air them out Let's do a full debate.

I want to have time to cross -examine Dave hunt and I want to ask him

I Want to ask him about these things? I Want to know how does he deal with the contextual evidence concerning 2nd

Peter 3 9 I want to find out Well, anyways, no exegesis is given to these passages the assumptions that are made demonstrate that Dave hunt does not understand what he's addressing and That continues on as we listen to this segment.

Whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely Whosoever will but wait a minute.

You can't have a will Because if you have a will Then God's not sovereign you understand

God has to be sovereign to the extent that you do not have a will and Calvinist would say to you

Have you read Luther's bondage of the will Well, I've read Luther's bondage of the will very carefully and I don't understand how leading evangelicals can praise it

I don't find it either logical or biblical. I could drive a fleet of trucks through the holes

I'm sorry in Lutherans the bondage of the will Well, I truly doubt that Dave hunt could even begin to interact meaningfully with the bondage of the will but notice well man

Can't have a will Mr. Hunt there is a difference between the supreme

Autonomous freedom of the infinite God and the will of the fallen creature, man

Jesus said he who commits sin is the slave of sin. Are we not slaves?

Mr. Hunt's Deal with those passages don't ignore them When mr.

Hunt and I did that conversation last year Every time I'd go to the passages like that. He just run from me.

Just go someplace else. He just ignore that they were there This is not what we're to be doing this is not teaching the scriptures this is ignoring the scriptures and That simply isn't something that we should be doing in any way shape or form now

Listen to this next statement Listen to what? Mr. Hunt says God can't do but as soon as you allow that man has a will the

Westminster Confession for example said that God sovereignly changes your will and He causes you to willingly believe

Now just think about it for a moment If as long as you allow that someone has a will how are you going to change their will without them being willing to have?

their will changed You just can't do it you just can't do it

God can't change your will Mr. Hunt, why do you pray for anyone? Why do you pray?

That God would do you ever pray that God would soften someone's heart. Oh, I can't do that.

I'll change them as well God can't do that God created this will but man once he created it's beyond his control

Listen to what he says if as long as you allow that someone has a will how are you going to change their will without them?

Being willing to have their will changed Mr. Hunt Dave Hello Are you listening to what you're saying?

As long as someone has a will he says that they've got to be willing

Dave have you ever read Ezekiel 36 where I will take you from the nations

Gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land Then I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean

I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols Moreover, I will give you a new heart

I Will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you and I'll remove the heart of stone from your flesh and I will give you a heart of flesh and I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my

Statutes and you'll be careful to observe my ordinances. Oh How dare

God do that? But what do you mean take out a heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh give you a new heart

That's not fair. It violates my free will well, I'm awful glad it does

That's regeneration We're listening to a man complaining about the miracle of regeneration

This amazes me God can't change your will unless you're willing to do it

I am so glad that that is not the truth because I would never

I would never walk up to the gates of the

Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City again, if I believe what Dave Hunt believes if That person that I'm talking to has to be willing first I give up Forget it.

It's all over if I didn't believe that my

God can take that heart of stone out of that Mormons chest and give them a heart of Flesh I would never do what

I do again I'd like to have the week before Easter back for 18 years.

I've not had the week before Easter for me and my family. I Would never go out to Mesa and do what

I do again if I thought what Dave Hunt is saying is true But you know what? Dave Hunt has never thought these things through That's why

I'm mad at Dave Hunt because Dave Hunt should know better He should know better.

He simply should know better than to make this kind of statement It doesn't make any sense my goodness

Simply the miracle of regeneration Let's try to get another one in here before we get to Here comes the big thing for Dave Dave says that power and sovereignty has nothing to do with love

Power and sovereignty have nothing to do with love listen to what he has to say Well, there are things that a sovereign

God cannot do because you say you mean God doesn't have the power To make everybody love him if he wanted to Power has nothing to do with love.

I hope you understand that You point a gun at a girl and you say you will love me. I love you power force

Sovereignty omnipotence to understand has nothing to do with love It takes choice

It takes the will in fact giving man the power of choice has opened up a wonderful communion

Between God and man that we would not otherwise have we would be robots We would be puppets and God pulls the string.

We say I love you. God. I love you. God. It has to come from the heart Has to come from the heart

What kind of heart Dave? the stony heart Why does one man have a stony heart and another has a heart of flesh

Is it not God that makes men to differ? He says there's no relationship between power and love.

What's the greatest commandment Dave? What's the greatest commandment? You shall love

The Lord your God with all your heart soul mind and strength the greatest commandment doesn't involve power

Or maybe you have the wrong definition of love Dave Maybe you don't understand

The biblical definition of what love really is He said no one takes me.

I lay it down to myself. He cried in triumph with a loud voice To tell us die it is finished and they stamp that on documents in that day.

It meant paid in full and Unless the penalty was paid in full there is no forgiveness

It is a matter of God's justice and no church can do that for you. There could be I mean indulgences or influence

Prayers penance nothing will do it Unless you accept the penalty that Christ paid for your sins on the cross

Tell us die It is finished it's paid in full I Agree, but how can

Dave hunt say it Dave is it paid in full? Well, then how can anyone else be punished for the sins that were laid upon the

Lord Jesus Christ? You believe in substitutionary atonement in his closing

Mr. Hunt will make the reference he died in our place Okay, then was it a real atonement or just a theoretical one?

How can mr. Hunt say at the beginning? Paid in full and then right at the end throw this in unless you accept the penalty that Christ paid for your sins on the cross

What what does it mean to accept a penalty? Where does that come from there is no question that I have placed my faith in the

Lord Jesus Christ There is no question that we must believe The question is is

My act of faith What determines God's success?

Or is my act of faith the result of the success of the

Lord Jesus in his work? And in my life Do I make

God successful by what I do or is Jesus's work as Savior his success?

What results in my faith that's a hundred and eighty degree opposite perspective, isn't it?

It sure is and folks You know who agrees with Dave hunt?

their own Catholics the Mormons the Jehovah's Witnesses They say oh that's guilt by association

No That's demonstrating that Dave hunt is inconsistent and that our minion ism is inconsistent

And that's the first thing I said to Dave last year was Dave you and I oppose

Roman Catholicism You and I together have debated more Roman Catholic apologists and any of the two people put together

But Dave you agree with them against the Reformers on the subject of God's sovereignty and salvation

The Reformers were monergists You're a synergist so are Catholics so are

Mormons so are Jehovah's Witnesses so is Wayne International They're all synergists

Dave you're on the other side of the divide on one of the most fundamental issues. Why? Why is that?

And it's still the issue and Dave hasn't dealt with it yet To tell us die it is finished.

Yes, it is So what does that mean that means that Jesus is able to save to the uttermost

Those who draw near to God by him. He is able we are unable

That is the issue 866 8 5 4 67 63 we continue on and take your phone calls 8 6 6 8 5 4 67 63 we'll be right back and welcome back to dividing line

We're taking your phone calls now 8 6 6 8 5 4 67 63 and Scott from Modesto has been hanging on for quite some time about 45 minutes or so so we will bring

Scott on Hi, Scott. I'm sounding really bad all of a sudden, but maybe that has something to do with the fact that you're on the line

I don't know go ahead. What's your question? My question was originally Romans 3 27, but I believe that you've already answered that today

So if you don't mind, I'll ask a different question first Corinthians 10 13 Which I mean if my question is

I am I profess to be Calvinist but my question is that if God is totally sovereign which

Predestines are good works and even our bad works Then how is it that? First Corinthians 10 13 he says but remember that the temptations that come to your life are no different from what others experience and God is faithful He will keep the temptation from becoming so strong that you can't stand up against it when you are tempted

He will show you a way out so that you will not give in to it so I Mean I've given in to sin before but if God made it so that I could have gone out that doesn't make sense because he

Would predestine me to choose the sin am I correct or well? I think a couple things first of all it is not our responsibility to attempt to divine

God's eternal decree We know from Scripture that God has decreed the existence of sin the purpose of sin we see that in Joseph We see that I think very clearly in Isaiah chapter 10 someday

I'm just gonna have to take the time to go through the exegesis that passage because I think it's one of the most startlingly clear passages in all of the

Bible that teaches that there is a purpose to sin and that that sin is both held to our account righteously and positively and Properly, but that also as a part of God's eternal decree and has a proper purpose in it

And of course in Acts 428 in the crucifixion Lord Jesus Christ where God foreordains and Predestined this take place and yet obviously those who committed the sin are held accountable for it

But we can only see God's decree in hindsight because we are temporal creatures bound to time

I think the promise of first Corinthians 10 13 is that God is not going to put us into a position

Where we can just simply throw up our hands embrace sin and say well, you know what there was nothing

I could do about it I was put in a position where I had to do this I went ahead and embraced this sin because God is the one who forced me to do this

That's what first Corinthians 10 13 is saying as we encounter the Christian life We do not have to put ourselves in a position of saying well

I'm gonna give in to this temptation simply because the fact that God is not giving me a way out

That is never to be an excuse when we when we incur sin is because the fact that in that act

We are demonstrating that we continue to have a greater self -love than we have a love for Christ That's what every act of sin is is a demonstration of the fact that there are still areas in our in our life

Where we have not been yet conformed the image of Christ that he is continuing to do that work of sanctification within us

So I think one of the problems that some people get into is that we in recognizing

God's sovereign decree We somehow Then think that we then will have the ability within time to recognize how that works out

And we are not held accountable for that. We are not asked to know what it is Instead we are given guidelines for example in first Corinthians 10 to never adopt the attitude that says that well,

I'm gonna go ahead and sin because God has Has not given me a way out And I'm gonna go ahead and embrace this sin or whatever it wherever it might be

And that makes all the sense. Thanks for clearing that up But this steps into I think another question, which is that we know that God does not tempt, correct?

Well in the sense that the James says that he is not tempted with evil. He does not tempt us with evil Obviously, however, he puts us in positions in life where if if we didn't encounter temptations

He brings us into positions where we are tempted because of our own desires, but it's not a situation where You know, even what does the prayer say lead us not into temptation

But deliver us from from the power of the evil one And so I think we need to understand that what James is saying is again, don't don't blame

God For your own lusts and your own situations God certainly exposes us to situation after situation that causes us to grow in his grace

If we never experienced life We would never be conformed the image of Christ who went through this life and obviously was exposed to temptation not just the temptations in the wilderness, but the constant temptations of the crowds and the people around him and yet He was without sin.

Well, if we're gonna be like him We can't just go off and I think it's one of the greatest problems of of the monastic movement

It's the idea that well you separate yourself from the world. Well, we can't do that. We're going to live in the world We're going to experience that temptation.

What we ask is that That we be delivered from the power of the evil one and that when we do experience temptation in the victory over that We then become more like Christ.

We grow in the grace and knowledge the Lord Jesus Christ, etc, etc Okay, so just let me let me get this straight.

So when God does not tempt but when we are tempted obviously we are tempted and if God is sovereign

Then who is doing the tempting? Is it not God doing the tempting? I mean Well, well again look and look at the situation

Lord Jesus himself based in the attempt in the temptations in the wilderness Are we to say that that this was outside of God's sovereign decree?

Of course not and yet by the use of secondary means Satan same thing with Job Satan was given permission to do things to Job and in fact, that was a temptation to Job to sin, but God was faithful in that situation

He used the secondary source in demonstrating the faithfulness of his servant and of course we then become the beneficiaries both of the situation of Job and his example to our lives and then the

Lord Jesus who is Driven by the Spirit into the wilderness so that he might be tempted.

So we have to put all these together and recognize that When when you're quoting from James that James has a specific use there and he is decrying those who are saying

Similar to what Paul is dealing with the first Corinthians 10 He's decrying those who are saying well I sinned because God in essence put me in a situation where I had to So I think if you allow all the scripture to speak together, it is consistent was saying.

All right. Okay. All right. Thanks Thanks for calling. God bless. All righty. Oh Let's uh, that's well, we still got about 20 minutes left.

Let's talk to Gilbert's back in Way back across the United States in Somerville, South Carolina.

Hi Gilbert Doing good Yes I'm familiar with mr.

Vance. He's a he's a King James only advocate and he is certainly a vociferous opponent of Calvinism I was just wondering because you were talking about Ephesians 1 11 earlier and he makes the comments and I think you answered one of Them about the definition of the word decree

But he also says here in page 272 It says as proof that God's counsel is not

God's decree It should be known that in the Bible a man can reject the counsel of God and he quotes Proverbs 125 where it says

He have said at naught all my counsel in Proverbs 130 they despised on my reproof and they would not on my counsel in a

Luke 730 it says The Pharisee and the Lord rejected the counsel of God. Mm -hmm, and I was wondering what's your comment on that?

Well, none of those none of those passages that I see here Specifically refer to the counsel of God's will it's another situation whereby attempting to Separate a phrase out similar to what?

Mr. Hunt does in acts 1348 the simple fact matter is

You have to ask the question When it says having been predestined according to his purpose

First of all, what's that purpose? That's one word then it's the purpose of the one

Who all things is working according to and then the counsel of his will is one phrase

You can't separate that out and say well This word is used over here in this way and this words used over here in this way

The action word is in their ghetto, which means to work to do something

This is something God is doing and when it says that he is doing something when he is working

Top on top all things it says that that working of all things is kata

According to and then you have the phrase the counsel of his will so Even if you were to go someplace else and say well the word counsel, maybe

That was used of for example The wisdom of God in Scripture and people reject that that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that when

Paul refers to God He describes him as the one who predestines according to his purpose

And when he describes his purpose, it is the purpose of the one one not multiple ones

But one person who works all things now, do we work all things do we work some things?

Do we even have any control over the events of time? This would be an issue It has to be addressed that unfortunately,

I don't find these writers very Interested in addressing and then they'd have to explain what does it mean to connect that phrase?

Working all things with the phrase According to the counsel of his will now in the context it makes perfect sense

But when you start cutting it up and saying well, it doesn't necessarily Have to mean this as soon as you hear someone saying it doesn't necessarily have to mean this you've probably got a problem because instead of giving you a positive exegesis of a text they're attempting to avoid

The result of the exegesis of the text and so the first thing you always have to do is go into the text find out

What it's positively saying and then when they say well I think you're reading something more into this because this term may not mean this then you have to ask

Well, are you you're looking at in its context? Are you looking at it as it's appearing in as a phrase etc, etc, etc

And unfortunately, I just have not found the individuals who are writing against the reform position to get into that level of the text

They just simply don't find it to be useful Okay Well, first of all

I would at that point. This is where we now get into I think some very dangerous areas and that is this is also a passage

That is used by open theists by those individuals who?

Attempt to say that God has no knowledge of future events And so I really would point out to folks that people who are pushing

The open theistic perspective are much more consistent Armenians Armenians who say that God knows the future exhaustively

But then deny the decree of God. I don't think have any real basis for making that assertion

So when someone says well, this is a thing which I never commanded nor did it ever enter my mind

They are asserting that well what that means is is God was shocked and amazed when someone

Would burn children. Well, actually if you go back into the Old Testament into the the

Torah even before entered into the land God through Moses prophesied they do this so that is obviously not the meaning of the passage

They are ignoring that rather glaring contradiction that anyone who's familiar with the first five books

The Bible would automatically recognize Secondly when it says a thing which I never commanded or spoke of nor did it ever enter my mind

The whole phrase is saying this is an action that you had no command to do

That's what he says a thing which I never commanded. I did not speak of it. Yes. He had spoken of it but not in the sense of giving

Approbation nor did it ever enter into my mind would then mean this was something that would never have

Even crossed my mind as a command for my people to do the whole idea is these people were claiming to have

God's Approval to do it and he says in no way shape or form Do you ever have a command from me?

You never had a word for me to do this It never entered my mind that this would be proper and fitting in my worship

You are lying about me to say that Yahweh ever gave command for this remember

Over and over again whenever Israel do something wrong There would always be false prophets there to give them

The command to give them, you know to tell the king. Oh, go ahead and do this You'll defeat your enemies etc, etc, etc

And God is saying no You may have had false prophets who told you that it was the mind of Yahweh to do this

But it never entered my mind. I never commanded it I never spoke of it and you do not you never had my approbation to engage in this kind of stuff

So I think there's two bases there upon which you would say that both the open theist and then the

Arminian who's attempted to say Well, see it never entered his mind. He didn't know about this sin, etc, etc are in error in their interpretation that passage

Thank you, God bless you eight six six eight five four Sixty -seven sixty three eight six six eight five four

Sixty -seven sixty three is the phone number. We have been looking at Dave Hunt's examination alleged examination anyways of Reformed theology we have been doing so because Dave says

I think I probably know more about Calvinism than most of the people Who call themselves? Calvinist that's what

Dave says and so we've been examining it on that basis and you say but you've been harsh to him

You you've you've point out where he's made errors and mistakes and you've said that especially when he says that that you

Adoption his son and sons of God and and being conformed the image of Christ all these things are special blessings.

That's false teaching well folks I would hope That everyone would be more concerned about God's truth than what people think of them

So that if anyone were to come along and make that kind of false teaching in that kind of false statement that Anyone would be more concerned about God's truth so that they would stand up and say that's wrong

Dave Hunt may be a nice guy, but he's wrong. I hope our priorities are in the right place

These are important issues Since I don't see any lights blinking

I'm going ahead and press forward and close the program today with Re -emphasizing the inconsistency in Dave's position in regards the

Sacrifice of Christ he has said That he finds this issue of limited atonement

To be a libel in the character of God He has you may recall last week

That he made a statement in fact. I'm gonna bring up the The thing right here

Total depravity unconditional election limited atonement that's shocking to many people

Limited atonement that's shocking that's shocking to many people shocking. He feels it's shocking he thinks it's a terrible horrible thing and Yet it is obvious to me

That he simply does not Understand what the issues are

He holds to substitutionary atonement folks Substitutionary atonement came from Calvinism.

It's a Calvinistic belief Historical Arminians do not believe in Substitutionary atonement they can't they recognize

That if Christ dies in the place of someone that the penalty of sin is paid in full

And Dave Hunt says to tell us die it is finished It's paid in full

And then he says but all you've got to do is receive it folks if you are condemned

To die by lethal injection and as they're strapping you to the gurney someone else comes in and says

I Will take his place lays down they kill him you don't have any right to stand there and say ah

But but I don't accept that If you lay down that gurney, you know what's gonna happen they ain't gonna kill you the law has been fulfilled

The penalty has been paid To tell less die it is finished

They can't kill you anymore friend You got to go out and do something else

Because the penalty for that crime has been paid So Dave if you believe in substitutionary atonement, how can you believe in universal atonement?

The two don't go together, man They don't fit together my friend. It's not shocking

What's shocking to me? Is that so many? Evangelicals won't think through their theology and will hold to self

Contradictory beliefs and just don't care That's what's shocking to me. Listen what

Dave says You in heart, but wait a minute. Wait a minute. Now you're saying that Christ died for everyone

Well, if he died for everyone then some of Christ's blood was shed in vain, but you cannot divide up the blood of Jesus Okay, let me stop right there.

I'm gonna take it back here and start from the beginning who says anything about Some of Christ's blood being shed in vain

No one's dividing up the blood of Jesus. I Have no idea

There is nothing in Reformed theology. It talks about dividing up the blood of Jesus The point is if the

Lord Jesus Christ Took the place of John Brown The wrath that was due for the sin of John Brown Which God knows

Dave says he has perfect knowledge of the future. I Don't think Dave has a consistent basis for saying that but he says it

God knows what John Brown's sins are gonna be and if Dave believes in substitutionary atonement.

He has to believe That God knows what our sins are gonna be or he can't lay him on Jesus, right?

Okay God knows what John Brown's sins are gonna be and And so he lays

John Brown's sins on Jesus that's what Dave says happens universal atonement

Jesus suffers for all the sins of John Brown then

Jesus appears In the presence of God in the presence of the

Father in the place of John Brown and he pleads his blood and the

Son Pleads that perfect atonement in the place of John Brown it is the

Son's intention that John Brown be saved and Then the Father sends the

Spirit to convict John Brown and yet in Arminianism though the

Father and the Son and the Spirit the very triune God Decree it should take place

The triune God is not as powerful as John Brown John Brown's will rules over the

Trinity's will and Though the Father decrees it and the

Son dies to secure it and the Spirit comes to apply it John Brown says no and Christ fails

Christ fails Was it not his intention to save John Brown and the

Father? Punishes the Son in vain in vain does he suffer on the cross in the place of John Brown He suffers for all the sins of John Brown But because John Brown's will is so powerful and the

Spirit is so weak Jesus fails in his intention, but then what happens

John Brown dies What does God do God engages in double jeopardy

Because all those sins which were allegedly born in the body of Christ on the cross are now punished in John Brown the same sins punished twice once in Christ and once in John Brown and you know the amazing thing is

God knew it was gonna happen if God had perfect knowledge of the future

Then God knew when he laid the sins on his son that it was in vain to do it, but he did it anyways

Why we're never told We're never told you know why folks there's only one reason why people believe this

Because they have to control God through their myth of free will

They won't bow before his will and say thy will be done. That's why

Say man, you're pretty Pretty upset about this

Why would you respond to this stuff? I mean come on. He's on your side. Don't you think the

Catholics go out look? They're fighting over there. We have to friends see when

I debated Robertson Janice on the mass I Defended the perfection of the work of Christ on the cross

And if Dave hunt is going to ignore the godly counsel he's been given and in ignorance of the facts

Attack that same truth. Well, then I'm gonna respond to him, too We have to We must by God's grace next week.