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

Around the world. From the desert metropolis of Phoenix Arizona this is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll-free.

Across the United States it's 1 -866 -854 -6763. And now with today's topic here is James White. And good afternoon. 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 be well if the air conditioning stops. I'm leaving anyways. So we are continuing our response this week to Dave Hunt's presentation February of this year reform theology reviewed in light of scripture.

Dave Hunt Claims to Know Calvinism Better Than Calvinists

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 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 Calvinist 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.

Calvinist. 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.

Calvinist 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 in 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 sin because we're dead to sin.

What does it 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 say 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 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 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 look 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 does 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 over emphasis upon sovereignty. We just read in Ephesians 111 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 it 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 that I'll continue on with it are Jesus's words that we are to pray thy will be done earth as it is in heaven.

A refutation of the clear meaning of Ephesians 111 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 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. Will see that Mr. Hunt simply has not thought through his theology at this.

Point. But I continue on that 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 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 111. 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. A .W. 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 111 you make a specific assertion that there is 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 as well. 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's that come from. The Greek term is bully 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 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 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 so plainly throughout pages and pages 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 a 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 an 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 going to 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 in 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 said we had something about.

Predestination and election in this. And choosing which is election verse 4 go back to it according as he has 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 much 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 said there this. This is truly amazing. Or 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. The order salutes. 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 under the adoption but. But that's just something some Christians get. Listen to this again. We have a little back down here. Thank you very much. Never.

Do you find election predestination the choosing of God for salvation to hear.

That it's never for salvation and yet second. Thessalonians 213 says but we should always give thanks to God for you brother and beloved by the Lord because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the spirit and faith in the truth.

Never do you find election.

Predestination the choosing of God for salvation second Thessalonians 213 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 then 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 does foreknowledge show up in Ephesians 1. And when will Mr. Hunt deal with the extensive refutation of that very misuse of prognosis go 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.

Foreknowledge 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 he's outside the realm of time. Well does that mean that what happens in time is outside of his decree.

He's just a 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. 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. So Mr. has completely wrong when he says that never do. We read that summer chosen to salvation we saw in second 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 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 you 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 going to 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 God 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 is 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 the verse 29 it says. For those who me 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 who me 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 who me 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 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.

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 miss teach 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 tuning in I should I should remind us. I think I probably know more about.

Calvinism than most of the people who call themselves Calvinist. 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 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 210. 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 210.

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 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 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 reputation 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. For example acts 1348. And 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 how 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. 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 low 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 will 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 will have to have to move on. Well I wish you.

Hadn't moved on but 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 the 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 1348 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 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 is 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 1348 15 to 2210 and 2823. 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 context 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 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 dispose them to believe.

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 Calvinist have to constantly redefine the language.

No Calvinist 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 Calvinist believe that you then think we are redefining the language acts 1348 simply does not allow for Mr. Hunt's re translation 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 world it means the elect in 1st John chapter 2 verse 2 where it says he is the propitiation for our sins that would be the elect 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 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 of what 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 to me and drink. Sounds like it's an invitation I hope.

That anyone who does understand the reform 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 reform position.