G*******s
发帖数: 4956 | 1 Dave Hunt's Response to James White
Hunt, Dave
May 15, 2002
James, you and I have agreed on the phone today to put this debate in writin
g in the form of a book with a publisher agreeable to us both. That will all
ow the arguments to be studied more carefully by readers than is possible in
oral debates. We will both do our best to complete it as quickly as possibl
e (though I have a busy travel and speaking schedule as you do also). The pu
blisher wants to go to press in September. That’s fast, but we’ll both do
our best to complete our work as soon as possible. Therefore, I will not tak
e time to refute the many misrepresentations in your “Open Letter” of my b
ook, What Love Is This?- Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God. I’ll mentio
n only a few.
You say, “I simply could not believe that the source you used to come up wi
th the identification of Augustine as ‘the first real Roman Catholic’ was
none other than Peter Ruckman himself.” The source? Those five words are al
l that I quote of Ruckman (whom I don’t admire any more than you do) in the
entire book, but the readers of your “open letter” would think that I had
relied solely upon him – a gross misrepresentation. Nor did I use Ruckman
to “come up with the identification of Augustine” as stated. I merely cite
d him as one of many who so labeled Augustine. In the very same sentence I q
uote Philip Schaff calling Augustine the “principal theological creator of
the Latin-Catholic system....” I quote numerous others to the same effect –
W.H.C. Frend calling him “the father of the inquisition” and Frederic W.
Farrar saying “his writings became the Bible of the Inquisition.”
I cite the fact that Augustine is one of the “doctors” of the Roman Cathol
ic Church with a feast day dedicated to him by the Church on August 28, the
day of his death. I quote from the Pope’s special remembrance of Augustine
on the 1600th anniversary of his conversion, praising his influence on the C
hurch and calling him “the common father of our Christian [i.e., Roman Cath
olic] civilization.” I quote others, from Sir Robert Anderson to Warfield,
listing the major teachings and practices of Roman Catholicism that all came
from Augustine. And you say that “the source” of my information is Ruckma
n?! You even bring up Gail Riplinger, whom I don’t mention at all.
Having established Augustine’s position vis-a-vis Roman Catholicism, I quot
e a number of leading Calvinists (including Spurgeon and Warfield) who decla
re that Calvinism is Augustinianism, and I provide many of the more than 400
quotes of Augustine contained in Calvin’s Institutes, including the oft-re
peated phrase “by the authority of Augustine.” I quote John Calvin himself
f my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of
his writings.” How could you ignore this heavy Catholic influence upon Cal
vin and the many resulting errors in Calvinism from that source?
Repeatedly you put words into my mouth, building a straw man easily knocked
down, such as the following: “You conclude the section with a paragraph tha
t basically says, ‘Hey, I’ve already refuted this stuff. Don’t sweat this
. I know this passage sounds like Calvinism, but trust me, it isn’t.” Thos
e are your words, James, not mine. Is that fair? Why don’t you quote me and
let readers come to their own conclusions?
You say that I “miscited” Mt. 23:37 in our newsletter and our radio discus
sion. But you make no reference to the lengthy discussion of that verse I pr
ovide in the book, which surely clarifies my position in a thoroughly biblic
al manner. You repeatedly charge me with avoiding exegesis when, in fact, my
book is filled with exegesis. Of course you argue that, because I don’t kn
ow the original languages, I’m incompetent to exegete the Bible (though I w
as studying it on my knees long before you were born). What a pity that Wycl
iffe Bible translators waste their time translating the Bible into native la
nguages, when instead they ought to teach the tribe to speak Hebrew and Gree
k! You go so far as to imply that “seminary education, training in Greek an
d Hebrew, study of theology, etc. [are] necessary to the task of engaging su
ch topics as soteriology, etc.”
If that is not elitism, what is it? And it is all the more disturbing that y
ou say this about soteriology, placing an understanding of salvation beyond
the reach of anyone but scholars. I quote numerous Calvinists who boast that
Calvinism is the gospel and is Christianity, leaving the clear impression t
hat non-Calvinists have not grasped and surely don’t preach the gospel and
are thus not Christians.
In spite of my many decades of studying, teaching, preaching and writing fro
m Scripture, you insist I’m not competent to deal with Calvinism. Then it c
ould hardly be biblical, inasmuch as a common man (Deut 8:3; Ps 1:1-2), a yo
ung man (Ps 119:9) and even a child (2 Tim 3:15) taught at home by his mothe
r and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5) can understand the Bible and the way of salvat
ion. But this proud boast of Calvinism being understandable only to the spec
ially trained mind is common among Calvinists. This system of theology is se
emingly so complex and so esoteric that only after many years of study can o
ne comprehend it. One can only conclude that the multitudes of ordinary Calv
inists do not properly grasp Calvinism, because like me they lack the expert
ise in the original languages and the years of academic study which you say
is essential. They must have simply taken the word of you Greek scholars. I
wonder how the Bereans checked Paul out against the Bible without the semina
ry education you say is so necessary.
Your continual misrepresentation of my book in your “open letter” is distu
rbing but I can’t take time to deal in detail with that now. More disturbin
g are the repeated false accusations you make, accusing me of ad hominem att
acks upon you and Calvin and Calvinism, but without providing one example –
not one – a grossly unfair and ad hominem tactic in itself, which you empl
oy throughout. Let me give you a few quotes to show the intensity of your ad
hominem attack.
In the space of one page you accuse me of all of the following: of appealing
to those “who are susceptible to emotionalism,” of “an obvious attempt t
o poison the well,” of “wild rhetoric” and “simple misrepresentation,”
even of “anti-Calvin rhetoric...nigh unto ‘screeching’...on the same leve
l as Jimmy Swaggart...lacking in the first element of fairness (let alone ch
arity)...so overboard, so without the first bit of honesty in its use of sou
rces...tirade against Calvin...not pursuing the truth...without any fair con
sideration of the facts...reprehensible on any level...dishonest methodologi
es... unrestrained slander of John Calvin...blasting away at Calvin...etc.”
James, do you consider it fair to engage in such a torrent of libelous accus
ations which are damaging to my character and reputation as a writer and Chr
istian and to do so without providing even one example?! These irresponsible
accusations betray your prejudicial unwillingness to give a fair hearing to
those who disagree with Calvinism. And you complain of “the tone” of my b
ook! Under the heading, “The Tone of the Work,” you protest against my all
eged “level of rhetoric [and] constant ad hominem argumentation...”! I cha
llenge you to find anything in my book that justifies such a charge, much le
ss even approaches the language you use which I have quoted above.
In your one example, you say, “This kind of rhetoric is simply reprehensibl
e. You should apologize to every person who has plunked down the money to bu
y this book for this kind of statement.” And what reprehensible “statement
” was that? Here is your indictment: “...if you were the careful reader yo
u claim to be, you would know that my presentation of John 6:44 is based upo
n the exegesis of the Greek text, not quotes from John Calvin.”
Read it again, James. I did not say that you “based” your presentation of
John 6:44 upon “quotes from John Calvin.” I said, “To support his asserti
ons, White quotes Calvin, to whom he refers with great admiration.” Why do
you accuse me of saying that you based your assertions upon Calvin? Is there
not a huge difference between supported and based? There is no question tha
t you supported your assertions with a quote from Calvin. And for that true
statement I ought to “apologize to every person who has plunked down the mo
ney to buy this book...”?!
If you weren’t supporting your interpretation of John 6:44, to what purpose
is the lengthy quote of Calvin on p. 161 preceded by this statement, “Here
are his [Calvin’s] comments on John 6:44"? And what admiration did you exp
ress for Calvin in presenting this quote? Here it is: “John Calvin is admit
ted, even by his foes, to have been a tremendous exegete of Scripture. Fair
and insightful, Calvin’s commentaries continue to this day to have great us
efulness and benefit to the student of Scripture.” I won’t recite again Ca
lvin’s many exegetical errors and false doctrine to which I refer in my boo
k. I only wonder why you fail to warn your readers of these pitfalls in Calv
in’s writings?
Your most devastating charge – and I’m sure the one that has impressed the
readers of your “Open Letter” the most – is my alleged “grossly errant
assertion concerning Spurgeon,” an “error” which you say “is the norm”
of my work. Here is my statement to which you refer with such outrage: “Spu
rgeon himself...rejected Limited Atonement...in unequivocal language: ‘I kn
ow there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limi
t the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limi
tation, I would cast it to the winds...bound and measure are terms inapplica
ble to the divine sacrifice.’” Clearly, the “some” to whom Spurgeon refe
rs are some Calvinists. The doctrine of “Limited Atonement” does indeed se
t “bound and measure,” which Spurgeon declared was “inapplicable to the d
ivine sacrifice.”
You then quote Spurgeon where he teaches that this boundless atonement has b
een limited by God’s choice and accuse me of being dishonest in stating tha
t he rejected limited atonement. In fact, the error is not mine but somethin
g which is endemic to Calvinism: contradictory statements. In the quote I gi
ve, Spurgeon clearly rejects the thought of any “limit” to “the merit of
the blood of Jesus.” But in the same breath he also just as clearly denies
that the unlimited merit of Christ’s blood is available to all mankind. I a
m as much justified in quoting him on the one side as you are on the other –
though you will deny any contradiction, while I insist upon it by the very
nature of Christ’s sacrifice. Perhaps Limited Atonement and what it means i
s a good topic for our book. Spurgeon’s argument that Christ (the lamb slai
n from the foundation of the world - Rev 13:8) could not have died for those
already in hell is simply wrong, and something we can discuss in our book a
s well if need be.
Such contradictions are innate to Calvinism because it is not a coherent sys
tem of theology based upon Scripture but arises from human theories which me
n have forced upon certain biblical texts. In Sermon 442 Spurgeon both affir
ms and denies free will – another clear contradiction. Piper, in his attemp
t to make Calvinism say that God loves those whom He has predestined to eter
nal damnation (a proposition which Clark insisted was clearly contradictory,
bringing a division within the Calvinist camp), is driven to pursue convolu
ted arguments to support the delusion that God has “two wills” which are c
ontrary to one another. Such contradictions are “the norm” in Calvinism –
and to explain them away it does indeed take much expertise.
Exegesis is a key concept which you insist must hinge upon learned analysis
of the original languages – an analysis that the average person who grew up
with either Hebrew or Greek as his native tongue could not engage in withou
t a seminary education. This puts the Bible beyond the reach of the ordinary
person and leaves most people at the mercy of supposed “experts.” But as
anyone knows, a few years of Greek and Hebrew in seminary do not make one an
expert in either language. Presumably the Bible translators had more than a
seminary acquaintance with the languages, though they still make mistakes.
You fault my use of what you call “the kind of ‘Strong’s Exhaustive Conco
rdance’ interpretation’” that the average Christian would use. Isn’t tha
t elitism again? The implication seems to be that “scholars” are more adep
t at giving the “true meaning” than were the translators of the Bible. App
arently, without special training readers of the Bible are left to wallow in
ignorance and error. If the gospel is that complicated, then very few could
comprehend it and ever be saved, and the study of Scripture would have to b
e reserved for an elite evangelical leadership (similar to the Roman Catholi
c magisterium) upon whose interpretation the rest of us would have to rely.
Of course, whether the sinner understands the gospel or not hardly matters w
ith Irresistible Grace in operation. Furthermore, according to Calvinism’s
most bizarre and clearly unbiblical doctrine, without believing the gospel t
he sinner is sovereignly regenerated and given spiritual life and only then
given the faith to believe. The fact that the new birth and salvation follow
faith as a result thereof is so clearly and so often stated in Scripture th
at a child couldn’t miss it – yet the Calvinist must cling to this reverse
order to make TULIP work.
One of your major points in discrediting my simple understanding of “whosoe
ver” in John 3:16 is that if people could, by their free choice, believe in
or reject Christ, it would follow that “some people are better than others
.” That argument is so clearly false (believing a promise has nothing to do
with whether one is good or bad) that I won’t waste time refuting it. You
go to great lengths to explain John 3:16 as no child could ever understand i
t. What a tragedy that millions of children are taught by godly mothers and
fathers and earnest Sunday-school teachers what you call the “traditional”
misunderstanding of John 3:16. By your standard, not until they become “sc
holars” expert in Greek (or take some Calvinist’s word for it) will they r
ecognize that Christ didn’t die for the whole world, but that salvation is
offered only to an exclusive elect to which, by overwhelming odds, they most
likely do not belong, being part of the vast multitude of the damned on the
“broad road to destruction.” Eternal doom awaits them simply because the
God who “is love,” from eternity past before they were born was “pleased”
to predestine them to everlasting suffering with no hope of escape even tho
ugh the merit of Christ’s shed blood is infinite.
You fault me for referring to Calvinism’s elect as a “select few” and cit
e Spurgeon and others to the effect that millions will be in heaven. Indeed,
there will be a company that “no man can number.” You must know, however,
that “few” is a comparative term, and the redeemed indeed are few in rela
tion to the far greater number who, according to Calvinism, have been predes
tined to eternal doom. Perhaps you would like to take up your complaint with
our Lord who Himself declared that few indeed would enter the “strait gate
” and be saved.
As a critic of Roman Catholicism, would you not agree that the vast majority
of the world’s one billion Catholics are not saved, that the vast majority
of the 1.2 billion Muslims, the vast majority of the 400 million Eastern Or
thodox, the hundreds of millions of Buddhists, communists, Shintoists, etc.,
etc., are not saved – a condition to which they were predestined by God wh
o simply didn’t want them in heaven? Indeed, all of your erudition and care
ful exegesis using the original languages and grammatical rules is calculate
d to prove one thing: that God who “is love” does not love everyone, does
not want everyone in heaven, has predestined to eternal suffering the unsave
d who clearly number in the billions – and even takes pleasure in damning t
hem. I do not believe that is the God of the Bible – and that is the major
difference between our two positions.
In the book, we will have the opportunity to lay out our opposing views clea
rly and concisely from the scriptures so that readers can weigh them careful
ly. I look forward to that joint effort praying that the Lord will give us b
oth clarity of expression, and hope that in the meantime, as the publisher d
esires, we can restrain ourselves from further exchanges which would only ta
ke time and delay the book’s publication.
We have agreed today that The Berean Call will carry your “Open Letter to D
ave Hunt ” and that you in turn will carry “Dave Hunt’s Response to James
White.” I am content to let my much shorter response be sufficient and to
reserve further discussion for the book, which I hope and pray will be a ble
ssing to the body of Christ, driving all of us to a more careful and prayerf
ul study of God’s Holy Word.
http://www.thebereancall.org/calbook.htm | R*o
发帖数: 3781 | 2 thanks for sharing
writin
all
in
possibl
pu
do
tak
【在 G*******s 的大作中提到】
: Dave Hunt's Response to James White
: Hunt, Dave
: May 15, 2002
: James, you and I have agreed on the phone today to put this debate in writin
: g in the form of a book with a publisher agreeable to us both. That will all
: ow the arguments to be studied more carefully by readers than is possible in
: oral debates. We will both do our best to complete it as quickly as possibl
: e (though I have a busy travel and speaking schedule as you do also). The pu
: blisher wants to go to press in September. That’s fast, but we’ll both do
: our best to complete our work as soon as possible. Therefore, I will not tak
|
|
