in an article called who can understand the gospel? .. Dave hunt lays out his case in his presentation ... why Calvinism is false .. and does not honour Gods word .. yet revealing some things of interest,, his inability to lay down a case for his own beliefs, and also his constant misrepresentation of the bible and the doctrines he chooses to hate
Dave hunts first point
Calvinists emphasis that their theology rests upon solid biblical exegesis, being “firmly based...upon the Word of God.” Some have gone so far as to assert that “this teaching was held to be the truth by the apostles,” and even that “Christ taught the doctrines that have come to be known as the five points of Calvinism.”
According to the Bible itself, however, no one should accept such claims without verifying them from Scripture. Any doctrine claiming to be based on the Bible must be carefully checked against the Bible—an option open to anyone who knows God’s Word. Relying upon one supposed biblical expert for an evaluation of the opinions of another would be going in circles. No matter whose opinion one accepted, the end result would be the same: one would still be held hostage to human opinion. Each individual must personally check out all opinions directly from the Bible. Yet I have been advised to keep silent on the basis that only those with special qualifications are competent to check Calvinism against the Bible, an idea that in itself contradicts Scripture.
Why should Calvinism be such a complex and apparently esoteric subject that it would require years to comprehend? Such an attitude could very well intimidate many into accepting this belief simply because such a vast array of highly respected theologians and evangelical leaders espouse it. Surely the great majority of Calvinists are ordinary Christians. On what basis, then, without the expertise and intense study that I apparently lacked, were they able to understand and accept it?
Most Calvinists (but not all) agree upon five major points. Some insist that there are ten or even more relevant points. Edwin H. Palmer, in his book The Five Points of Calvinism, suggests, “Calvinism is not restricted to five points: it has thousands of points.” It’s not likely that we can cover all those alleged points in these pages! Palmer himself deals with only five.
RESPONSE
here in this response we find Dave hunt making several logical errors in such a short space .. for most of us it takes years of study in regards to understand many of the major doctrines of the faith .. for example without real understanding man can speak of the Trinity a beloved truth about God ... being one person and three modes ... to the knowledgeable Christian we already see this being modalism, and not trinitarianism .. but many continually express it as such those in Islam for example
so there is n important and crucial need for a consistent and thorough study in order to do what Paul teaches in his letter to timothy
to correct, teach and exhort believers of the truth ... and this activity takes years to fully master
does the bible teach that Christs death merely makes men savable or does it actually teach us that he truly saves them .. john 6, Ephesians 1, Hebrews 7-10
we don't just accept what people say .. we actually study the teachings to see if they are biblically correct .. something you don't believe is neccasary in christian living
dave reveals two major focus' which becomes the main emphasis of the article .. what we have .. is a) the Calvinists insist on solid biblical exegesis , and b) all doctrines must be tested against the bible other wise it becomes circular
the most important point here to consider, which Dave does not seem to do is .. in these words "matter whose opinion one accepted, the end result would be the same: one would still be held hostage to human opinion" .. does he not see how this also refutes the article as his opinion is not be subjected to the same level of biblical testing as he assumes for the position he is criticising ... this is truly circular, and is by definition a sinking ship
when you allowed us to test your tradition against the scriptures, Dave, does one arrive at the same conclusions you do .. for example your universalism is that biblical .. how can we know ... since you are not being equal in your measures
in all your attempts in this article, in your books .. you do not tell us exactly how you come to the conclusion that Calvinism is contra to the bible .. of all the ways you choose to dedicate your attack you forget one thing exegesis of given texts ..
with this all said let us move to your first comment
Calvinists emphasis that their theology rests upon solid biblical exegesis, being “firmly based...upon the Word of God.” Some have gone so far as to assert that “this teaching was held to be the truth by the apostles,” and even that “Christ taught the doctrines that have come to be known as the five points of Calvinism.”
this is not an attack on the reformed theology or the doctrines of grace, but is a personal attack on our brother in the LORD .. DR James R White ... who makes the the positive claim that not only does the apostle paul teach the doctrines of grace in roman and ephesian .. but the Lord Jsus does in john 6 35 -45 and 65
and on the basis that you did not refute his case on john 6 in the debating calvinism book ... this position still stands as a truth
and there is a very important need for sound exegesis and deep study of all the biblical issues ... which your study has garnered no real damage to the position your so adament in denying is true
for example in the book debating Calvinism
you spend your time shows scripture ripped from context, and assume they contradict clear teachings .. and the one text you do assess .. you not only falsely assume your position is true .. but in doing so .. you don't refute Dr white in the slightest .. but with out knowing it you turn the whole reformation on its head ... and the protestant view of justification is left defenceless against the enemies of it
here are your words "Romans 3 quotes psalms 14 .. but other psalms have men seeking after God "
we note 2 points on this
1 -- this is a non response, as it does not deal with James white position or his exegesis of the 1st three chapters which are seen in a good portion in both the debating book and the potters freedom as well as a full exegesis in the God who justifies ( about 3 pages in debating Calvinism, give or take .. 2 pages in the potters freedom and a massive 37 page of an exegesis in the God who justifies)
so the real point is that this response by Dave is insufficient
2 -- through Dave's hate of the doctrines of grace .. he has in one hand provided us with a false view that is easy to refute, but he also has shown he can not handle the text in question .. and leaves the door open for refutation on the doctrine of justification .. which is the heart of the gospel
but your next point is very interesting .....
the following words ... based on acts 17 :11 .. you ask this "Calvinists insist that it requires special (and apparently lengthy) preparation for anyone to become qualified to examine that peculiar doctrine in light of the Bible. Why?"
well now Dave the point in reference .. is that Paul's teachings were being examined for consistency with the rest of the bible .. or the old testament .. and once found to honour them ... they believed in Paul's words ...
but this is hardly something which challenges a Calvinist .. since our position is based on the same methods .. appealing to scripture for the consistency of the particular doctrine .. and it seen that either you do not know the doctrines you are so against .. or you do not really care for it ... and do not truly honour Gods word at this juncture
According to the Bible itself, however, no one should accept such claims without verifying them from Scripture. Any doctrine claiming to be based on the Bible must be carefully checked against the Bible—an option open to anyone who knows God’s Word. Relying upon one supposed biblical expert for an evaluation of the opinions of another would be going in circles. No matter whose opinion one accepted, the end result would be the same: one would still be held hostage to human opinion. Each individual must personally check out all opinions directly from the Bible. Yet I have been advised to keep silent on the basis that only those with special qualifications are competent to check Calvinism against the Bible, an idea that in itself contradicts Scripture.
this is an important point that we all agree upon that the bible is the place we go to determine whether a particular teaching is correct ... but what is not seen in ths is that daves freewill, universalist tradition does not rest in Gods word but has a totally different origin in its teaching .. one that turns scripture on its head by ignoring the wider context of any given verse that is raised in its favour
here is a good example
this type of shoddy work is called selective citing of single verses and it does not honour God in any real manner
you state .... on page 181 of debating Calvinism
"God desired peace not evil for Israel .. Jeremiah 29 :11... and would have healed her ... Hosea 7 :1 .... and blessed her without limit ... psalms 81 : 13 -16 instead, reluctantly he punished her .. Gods "will" is for "all men" to be saved 1 timothy 2:4 and that not one of these little ones perish ... Matthew 18 : 14 but all should come to repentance ... 2 peter 3:9"
from this litany of verses hunt has made a picture that universalism is true .. since you can find some verses to which he hangs his hopes on .. but what is missing is understanding from the wider context of the biblical passage in question
what is there to stop the Muslim from being correct in his assumed position of Christ being a ordinary human prophet in light of these two positions give the same manner of defence ripping apart context and not caring for full context
the last one is the first to be addressed ... why do we not see it from the whole context the third chapter ... it is because salvation is not the issue at hand, but in fact it is addressing the second coming of Christ
here is some context to establish this point of view
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed -- 2 peter 3 :8 -10
what are we able to take from this section
1 -- peter is addressing the christians at his time as well as through out history .. we know this since the term " beloved" -- this is a term of adoration and also a term of addressal in christian faith ... he is not alone in this john also utilises this in his epistle ... in 1 john 4 1 for example
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God -- 1 john 4 :1
2 -- But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed
a reference to the second coming .. note
a -- the similar understanding as Paul and Jesus himself on his return
b -- and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed -- this i believe refers to believers true faith as reveal by the work they do .. seen in James 2 :14 -26 and Luke 19 as well
3 -- there is also the universal gathering of the elect in this passage .. which we see in these words "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" ... when we consider the fact that early on in the letter peter state this ... in 2 peter 3 :1 "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking" in these words peter is address the beloved .. the believers for the second time ...
when we consider the first letter we find thi statement "
To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance." so clear that there is an elect ....
so baring in mind that this is not a passage that addresses the topic of salvation in any in depth manner ... what we have here is a classic example of eisegesis in play ... asserting a foreign point in the text .. when the context does not give any warrant to do such a thing .. consider the following words a good way of understanding peters point here "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed"
do these word speak of the day of atonement seeing they speak of a point in time nothing will be what it once was .. the earth will no longer be .. or is it address another issue .. as in the 2nd coming
so the reference to gathering of the saint has to be seen as the completion of of the elect being drawn to Christ before the world comes to an end
do these word speak of the day of atonement seeing they speak of a point in time nothing will be what it once was .. the earth will no longer be .. or is it address another issue .. as in the 2nd coming
so the reference to gathering of the saint has to be seen as the completion of of the elect being drawn to Christ before the world comes to an end
another passage to consider in this would be the Matthew passage .. which states the following
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish". -- Matthew 18
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish". -- Matthew 18
the first thing that needs to be asked is do we base our doctrines on the teaching such as parables or do we go to the more explicit teachings .. and base it upon those, then interpret the less clear one in light of the clearer ones ?
i would opt for the latter method as that seems to be more logical in this area
now lets see what we can get from this text .. as we know it is a parable and is one of three .. which is not describing salvation as a whole but is giving us a clue into whom it is for .. in this it is about the rivals .. the tax collector and the Pharisees ... but it could easily be seen as the Jew and gentile union in Christ ... and if so then .. it applies to the gentile believer who would be drawn by the father .. through spirit and the word
but as this passage is not totally clear we need to go to the teaching that are .. which will shed some light on this
in john ten we given some help so it is only fair to allow this text to be seen
I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father
i would opt for the latter method as that seems to be more logical in this area
now lets see what we can get from this text .. as we know it is a parable and is one of three .. which is not describing salvation as a whole but is giving us a clue into whom it is for .. in this it is about the rivals .. the tax collector and the Pharisees ... but it could easily be seen as the Jew and gentile union in Christ ... and if so then .. it applies to the gentile believer who would be drawn by the father .. through spirit and the word
but as this passage is not totally clear we need to go to the teaching that are .. which will shed some light on this
in john ten we given some help so it is only fair to allow this text to be seen
I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father
such a clear teaching on the work of Christ in bringing in the two fold which will united as one in his blood is the evident teaching in these words .... he lays his life down on his own accord for those of the sheep in his midst, but not for them alone
so it is not the Jews alone at this point in his discussion but another set of people who would come to believe in him
the most important factor is still to be seen, and will be seen now
Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
speak again of his sheep .. he make a distinction .. that there are people of whom are not his sheep .. because they do not belong to the father .. and these people are identified as the very Jews whom are involved in the dialogue
what else is vital in seeing is that this has happened 3 times now were Jesus plainly makes this point that certain people do not belong to him nor the father ... john 6 / 8 we read this
"Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away"
so it is not the Jews alone at this point in his discussion but another set of people who would come to believe in him
the most important factor is still to be seen, and will be seen now
Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
speak again of his sheep .. he make a distinction .. that there are people of whom are not his sheep .. because they do not belong to the father .. and these people are identified as the very Jews whom are involved in the dialogue
what else is vital in seeing is that this has happened 3 times now were Jesus plainly makes this point that certain people do not belong to him nor the father ... john 6 / 8 we read this
"Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away"
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
clearly in these passage Jesus presents the truth that many of those who say they are of God are in fact not believers at all ... and due to the fact they don't belong to the father ... they can not be given to the son .. showing they are not Christ sheep
and in this we see not every one can come to Christ unless they first belonged to the father .. and were given to Christ as result of the first part
so to speak of freely coming to Christ .. this is not a possibility from the biblical perspective
so those who Christs states this of "in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish" .. can only be seen as representing the elect of God and his son .. those given to Jesus by the father
and in this we see not every one can come to Christ unless they first belonged to the father .. and were given to Christ as result of the first part
so to speak of freely coming to Christ .. this is not a possibility from the biblical perspective
so those who Christs states this of "in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish" .. can only be seen as representing the elect of God and his son .. those given to Jesus by the father
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here i want to adress a couple of the points found later in the article which i think are very useful in detecting the tradtion dave has ....
and as we examine the ones i have chosen we will see daves tradition in full flow
a little later we are given four points to consider ... they are
First of all, God intends for us to understand His Word rather than to plead "mystery" over vital portions of it. He has given it for our learning. Of God’s Word the psalmist said, "it is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path" (Psalm:119:105)Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.), and such it is intended to be for each of us today. Peter acknowledged that there are "things hard to be understood" and warned that Scripture is sometimes twisted by some, resulting in destruction to those who do so (2 Peter:3:16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.). God never suggests, however, that there is any part of His Word that we should not attempt to understand fully. Inasmuch as many passages in Scripture are devoted to the difficult themes we will address, we can confidently expect that the Bible itself will clarify the issues.
i would love for consistency in the argument you raise ... since this objection works both ways since you claim.. "God intends for us to understand His Word rather than to plead “mystery” over vital portions of it." ...which Calvinist says this .... and why do you make this a standard when you can not give a legit exegesis of any text,
God intends for us to understand His Word rather than to plead "mystery" over vital portions of it. He has given it for our learning. Of God’s Word the psalmist said, "it is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path" (Psalm:119:105)Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.), and such it is intended to be for each of us today
we have an example of such a tradition in these words ...... firstly i agree that psalms 119 : 105 has direct application for all believer everywhere ... what we do not see in this statement is how that is then taken to mean every person as it is assumed, by these words "for each of us today"
lets examine the context in question
Your word is a lamp for my feet,
a light on my path.
106 I have taken an oath and confirmed it,
that I will follow your righteous laws.
107 I have suffered much;
preserve my life, Lord, according to your word.
108 Accept, Lord, the willing praise of my mouth,
and teach me your laws.
109 Though I constantly take my life in my hands,
I will not forget your law.
110 The wicked have set a snare for me,
but I have not strayed from your precepts.
111 Your statutes are my heritage forever;
they are the joy of my heart.
112 My heart is set on keeping your decrees
to the very end.
upon reading this psalm one must note the personal tone of the words .. although i do believe that there is some application for us today ... in that this could be seen as psalm that we can see in JESUS .. the perfect law keeper, our light and guide, but we also need to recognise that this was something that david wrote about the guidence of the law in his life as a devout Godly man
but the whole psalm speaks to how some one veiwed the law as being a wonderful and beautiful extention of God mercy in their lives
Peter acknowledged that there are "things hard to be understood" and warned that Scripture is sometimes twisted by some, resulting in destruction to those who do so (2 Peter:3:16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.).
now lets ask ourselves what peter actually states
just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
note that there is two cases in these verses .... the ones who are ignorant and unstable who twist the scripture to their own destruction .. just as their will be those who are not ignorant and unstable .... the difference in this is that no Calvinist is ignorant on the biblical teachings ... we accept them all without question, based not on our personal feelings but on a dedicated heart and study
the question remain why does Dave hunt continue to misrepresent the doctrine of grace which are biblical, and even more clearly choose to over look key passages like john 6, Romans 8 -9, and Ephesians 1 ... as well as many other texts
and on top of this why does he misquote Matthew 23 :37, and only selectively cite other passages .. which do not support his universalism
as we an fully see from part 1 .. Dave takes 2 peter 3 :9 away from its context and assumes a foreign concept into it .. that of universalism
Finally, God calls upon us to seek Him in order that we may know Him, though His ways and His thoughts are as far above ours as "the heavens are higher than the earth" (Isaiah:55:8) For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.–9). Surely, as we come to know God better, we will understand His Word and His will more fully. God is our Savior; to know Him is life eternal (John:17:3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.). Knowing God must include a deepening understanding of all He has revealed to us in His Word.
this is an important point to take note of .. since it is the freewillists position that man can come to God on their own merit .. and Dave's position is no different to any other freewillists, the only real contention here is does he fairly represent the Bible on this point, or is his point made of selective citing
and on this point we shall now turn to see what we can discover
he raises this as his sole defence
God calls upon us to seek Him in order that we may know Him, though His ways and His thoughts are as far above ours as "the heavens are higher than the earth
.
can we see more of this context to allow us to make an informed decision on its true meaning
Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire
here is a larger portion of the text in question and we need to ask who was God asking to return to him ... by asking them to seek him
the answer is the sinful men of Israel .. how do we know this is the case .. a few contextual clues are well worth taking on board
through out the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah we have the 2 prophets being sent to Israel to call back Israel from their wickedness .. of course there is also judgement on other nations too .. but here is the point
God gives them an ultimatum .. either repent or lose Gods protection .. look at these few words "Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near" .. what does this indicate God is giving them a choice .. to either be with him for good or he will forsake them for good
lets also consider another passage which can bring light to this situation from Hosea 5
“Their deeds do not permit them
to return to their God.
A spirit of prostitution is in their heart;
they do not acknowledge the Lord.5 Israel’s arrogance testifies against them;
the Israelites, even Ephraim, stumble in their sin;
Judah also stumbles with them.
6 When they go with their flocks and herds
to seek the Lord,
they will not find him;
he has withdrawn himself from them.7 They are unfaithful to the Lord;
they give birth to illegitimate children.
When they celebrate their New Moon feasts,
he will devour their fields.
here we see prophet Hosea making a declaration from God that those who seek him can know longer find him ... due to their rebellious hearts
we must always read the contexts of passages to get a wider feel for the points in them
and this what Paul in Romans 3 has in mind when he states these word of great contention .. but we need to understand them
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.” 14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
human sinfulness is so great that it can not be seen near God .. for man to be near God first has to do something remedy the problem, seek to make a solution in order to bring us close to him ... this is what is done in the atonement and out pour of the spirit ... the work of the spirit .. regeneration leads to saving faith in the Lord Jesus and this gives us the only true ground of being accepted by the Father .. in the work of the son Jesus
Why should Calvinism be such a complex and apparently esoteric subject that it would require years to comprehend? Such an attitude could very well intimidate many into accepting this belief simply because such a vast array of highly respected theologians and evangelical leaders espouse it. Surely the great majority of Calvinists are ordinary Christians. On what basis, then, without the expertise and intense study that I apparently lacked, were they able to understand and accept it?
interesting set of thoughts ... the subject of calvinism is not hard to understand but like any biblical truth it can be badly misrepresented if the person does not have the right mind in his research, and the interesting point is that the bible takes years to fully understand .... you have he muslims who memorise it and still misunderstand a great deal of biblical truths, so it is not hard to see why it takes a good amount of study to correctly handle the bible
dave the real point is this .... you did not study it to see if it was true, like many thing you put your focus on it becomes something tht you want to refute
and many calvinist do not become a calvinst because of "because such a vast array of highly respected theologians and evangelical leaders espouse it." .. we become a calvinist due to the fact that the former veiws we held were biblical incompatable .. were built around few selective verses that had been read through a lens of a tradition
a tradition which could not answer such clear teaching like john 6, romans 8 //9 and ephesians 1 to name just a few
Most Calvinists (but not all) agree upon five major points. Some insist that there are ten or even more relevant points. Edwin H. Palmer, in his book The Five Points of Calvinism, suggests, “Calvinism is not restricted to five points: it has thousands of points.” It’s not likely that we can cover all those alleged points in these pages! Palmer himself deals with only five.
if it was understood correctly , then one would see Palmer's point was not that there are 1000s of points ... but that the theology of Calvinism is not solely based on just five points .. they are just some of Central part that make the flow of things
too make his point clear the doctrines of grace are the central point that make the other truths more understandable and reveal them in a manner that is honouring
for example justification ... man can not be justified if the atonement is no more a reality ... you have to have a true atonement for true people, it is a personal application not a non personal one
hence this makes perfect sense why Justification and Limited Atonement have a true reality to them for they find they basis in CHRIST
there is no Justification in something only make people saveable, but does not truly save them
but the real point here is that Dave hunt is not being sincere in his efforts .. the topic of his article has not been touch, instead... what we are faced with is a consistent attack on men who have given much time to give us a good portion of their time in getting into the word of GOD
Exegeting the scripture to reveal all the truth which include the doctrines of grace, if he wants to carry on this road .. Dave needs to quote what these guys actually believe in regards to the bible.... and not their opinions of how many doctrines are to counted in
