# Dave Hunt Says We're All Lost....



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 21, 2006)

Except those of us who were saved under arminianism:

Dave Hunt on Whether Calvinists are among the Redeemed: 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Dave Hunt has recently announced that Calvinists will not be in heaven. In the September 2005 issue of The Berean Call, his newsletter, someone asks the following: 
Question: In the July ’05 Letters section, “TF of Ireland,” a self-proclaimed “Calvinist,” acknowledged that Tom and Dave are saved. Is it possible for someone who believes only in the soteriology of Calvin to be saved? Specifically, that God has to first change a person’s heart. Then…with the gift of grace, faith and salvation in Ephesians 2:8-9, man afterwards, by God’s decree, will come to Him (John 6:37), and fulfill God’s requirement for him to believe and repent. Again, assuming that the fruits and works that follow are genuine, could this soteriology allow for
salvation, apart from attributing any part of it to man’s free will (John 1:12-13)? Can you extend a statement of being a fellow believer to TF (and other Calvinists) as he has to you?

Dave, after taking rambling for a while, finally comes to this conclusion: 

Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all—and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they “shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life” (Jn 5:24). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Dec 21, 2006)

In the words of Sam Taylor,"Hum..........?"


Is it just me or is this statement just a bunch of confusing drivel?

The man obviously knows very litte about Calvinism as was evidenced by his strawman presented in his book What Love is This.

Now he presumes to sit upon the judgment seat of Christ and pronounce his strawman unsaved.


"Hum............?"


----------



## Blue Tick (Dec 21, 2006)

Dave Hunt is a prime example as to why Accountants should not attempt to be theologians.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 21, 2006)

Who wrote this:

God would never command a man to do something he was incapable of doing within himself...

Was that:

a. Pelagius
b. Dave Hunt
c. Both a and b are correct


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 21, 2006)

C?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 21, 2006)

Tell him what he wins Johnny!

My imitation of Dave Hunt's theology: 

God is a loving lover who loves with a love that loves. Calvinists don't love. God, the loving lover, would never be a Calvinist. My scholarly refutation of the 5 points of Calvinism is as follows:

1. Total Depravity - God, the loving lover, couldn't do that to man. It wouldn't be loving.
2. Unconditional Election - God loves all men with a love that loves. God lovingly looked down the corridors in time to love everyone because He couldn't help Himself. He just loves so much!
3. Limited Atonement - There is no limit to the love of the loving lover some call God. I call Him a loving lover.
4. irresistible Grace - Forcing a person to love you is not a loving thing. That's not the loving lover I know from John 3:16
5. Perseverance of the Saints - God (aka the loving lover) has one attribute. What is that attribute? LOVE! Did I mention that Calvinism denies the love of the loving lover?!

Thus, if a man ever believed in the loving lover and later added an attribute to God in addition to His love then he has embraced a false Gospel.


----------



## Devin (Dec 21, 2006)

Well, I guess I'm lucky that I was raised in an Arminian church. Maybe I have a chance. Too bad for the rest of you.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 22, 2006)

You mean he believes Calvinists aren't elect? Does that mean he believes in election? Hmmm...


----------



## Timothy William (Dec 22, 2006)

With all due respect, Hunt is an idiot. How could one be saved because of what one used to believe, if one doesn't believe it anymore? Or, why are those who were saved as Arminians still saved if they embrace a false gospel? His belief in Arminianism (we can always choose what to believe, free from the constraints of God's will) and Once Saved Always Saved are clearly contradictory.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 22, 2006)

For the love of Pete that's lovely Rich. Excellent summary of Hunt.  






SemperFideles said:


> Tell him what he wins Johnny!
> 
> My imitation of Dave Hunt's theology:
> 
> ...


----------



## Kevin (Dec 22, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> Tell him what he wins Johnny!
> 
> My imitation of Dave Hunt's theology:
> 
> ...



that great Rich! Now I don't have to feel guilty about not finishing "What Love Is This" that I got for xmas last year from my in-laws.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 22, 2006)

On the serious side, Phil Johnson does have a message rebutting Hunt's stupid little book over on his website that is very good.


----------



## CDM (Dec 22, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> Tell him what he wins Johnny!
> 
> My imitation of Dave Hunt's theology:
> 
> ...



 

[stands up, wipes eye]


----------



## jaybird0827 (Dec 22, 2006)

turmeric said:


> You mean he believes Calvinists aren't elect? Does that mean he believes in election? Hmmm...


 
 Meg! Your *good*!


----------



## Blue Tick (Dec 22, 2006)

The sad thing is there are people who actual think Dave Hunt is credible.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 22, 2006)

Blue Tick said:


> The sad thing is there are people who actual think Dave Hunt is credible.



Mr. Hunt has written some good books in the past on various subjects to my understanding. On this subject however, he is an ignorant servant of Satan.


----------



## caddy (Dec 22, 2006)

Yes, Excellent Movie

Loved Lancaster & Jones portrayal.

Can you say Benny Hinn ?




jaybird0827 said:


> Has anyone seen Elmer Gantry? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793/)
> 
> "And why? Because of luhvv! And what is luhvv? Luhvv is the morning and the evening star..."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 22, 2006)

Dave Hunt at least see the critical nature of the question at hand - Which Gospel? Many Calvinists would not even go so far as he does. At least, In my humble opinion, he is consistent. (Consistently wrong, but nonetheless, consistent.)


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 22, 2006)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Dave Hunt at least see the critical nature of the question at hand - Which Gospel? Many Calvinists would not even go so far as he does. At least, In my humble opinion, he is consistent. (Consistently wrong, but nonetheless, consistent.)


 
 EXACTLY what I was thinking.


----------



## non dignus (Dec 22, 2006)

In _What Love is This_? Hunt argues that Augustine was wrong. On what basis was Augustine wrong? Simple.

HE WAS A CATHOLIC.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 22, 2006)

Hunt believes in election but he also believes the elect may be turned out of office by a disgruntled constituency (God in this case). So to Hunt, the latent Calvinist gets elected based on his campaign promises to hold to Universalism, Free Will and the Exclusivity of the Love Attribute. When the elected fails to keep his promises ("Read my lips, NO NEW REFORMS!"), he is turned out of office and has to settle for a position as a lobbyist for heretical (reformed) causes.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 22, 2006)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Dave Hunt at least see the critical nature of the question at hand - Which Gospel? Many Calvinists would not even go so far as he does. At least, In my humble opinion, he is consistent. (Consistently wrong, but nonetheless, consistent.)



Excellent point!


----------



## Blue Tick (Dec 22, 2006)

I read Dave Hunt's book "What Love is this" and became a convinced Calvinist after reading it. Thanks Dave I still need to write him a letter for writing his book!


But George Bryson the Chief Resident Apologist for CC is much more dramatic. The Darkside of Calvinism You gotta love the cover! I'm curious who and how they picked the cover of this book.


----------



## BJClark (Dec 22, 2006)

SemperFideles;
My response to the summary...



> 1. Total Depravity - God, the loving lover, couldn't do that to man. It wouldn't be loving.



No, then He wouldn't be GOD! God can do ANYTHING He desires!!



> 2. Unconditional Election - God loves all men with a love that loves. God lovingly looked down the corridors in time to love everyone because He couldn't help Himself. He just loves so much!



Didn't God Himself say....Jacob I loved, Esua I hated??




> 3. Limited Atonement - There is no limit to the love of the loving lover some call God. I call Him a loving lover.



To which I would agree, but what does THAT have to do with limited atonement? In that He loves those He loves with unlimited love!!



> 4. irresistible Grace - Forcing a person to love you is not a loving thing. That's not the loving lover I know from John 3:16



Where does it say one is FORCED? It is irresistible, if one is irresistible, those whom He calls are drawn irresistably...and those who are not called aren't resisting it, they just aren't being called. They are repelled by it.



> 5. Perseverance of the Saints - God (aka the loving lover) has one attribute. What is that attribute? LOVE! Did I mention that Calvinism denies the love of the loving lover?!



I have no idea what this has to do with anything concerning the perseverance of the saints.



> Thus, if a man ever believed in the loving lover and later added an attribute to God in addition to His love then he has embraced a false Gospel.



It is not adding anything to the attributes of God, it is only a deeper understanding of God's attributes concerning who He is AS GOD!!

If a person is to believe God is God, then they must first understand what the word God means....

Who, what is a god in your life?? It's who/what you put first in your life...

That is the very first commandment....Thou shalt have NO OTHER GOD's before me...

http://truthpricks.blogspot.com/2005_01_26_truthpricks_archive.html


----------



## bradofshaw (Dec 22, 2006)

MrMerlin777 said:


> In the words of Sam Taylor,"Hum..........?"



Aka Wild Silas Tomkyns? Awesome!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 22, 2006)

Bobbi,

You have now exposed a fatal flaw in your argumentation: you used Scripture and sound exegesis. You also stopped talking about love.

The parody of Hunt is not far off the mark. James White sent me a copy of this book a while back:

https://aomin.org/bookstore/shop.html?shop=books#1113

Dave Hunt did not reply to any argumentation. He was like a pullstring doll on each point: God is Love, God is Love, God is Love, .... It is a strange read - very one sided where White is the only one who actually deals with each point and uses Scripture.

My copy is in storage in VA so I have to paraphrase but he actually states that the passage in 1 John that says "God is Love" is the _only_ place in Scripture that God is said to be something - the only attribute attributed to Him that way. I guess he never gets around the Scriptures very much - must be too busy. Isaiah 6 came to mind at the time.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 22, 2006)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Dave Hunt at least see the critical nature of the question at hand - Which Gospel? Many Calvinists would not even go so far as he does. At least, In my humble opinion, he is consistent. (Consistently wrong, but nonetheless, consistent.)



Yes Dave Hunt is a consistently consistent person. Definitely. He's like the Rainman of "God is Love". Yeah. God is Love.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 22, 2006)

Listen to Phil Johnson's "Calvinism on Trial". A critque of Dave Hunt's book.
Scroll down to 3/06/03

http://www.swordandtrowel.org/philsermons.htm


----------



## calgal (Dec 22, 2006)

non dignus said:


> In _What Love is This_? Hunt argues that Augustine was wrong. On what basis was Augustine wrong? Simple.
> 
> HE WAS A CATHOLIC.


  Wow. Just wow! Ignorant does not begin to describe Mr Hunt. I guess Hunt is not a nicene follower and as such is a perfect candidate for the mormons: they are also non nicene with a Hyper-Arminian twist.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Dec 22, 2006)

bradofshaw said:


> Aka Wild Silas Tomkyns? Awesome!




That's the guy.


----------



## Average Joey (Dec 22, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> Yes Dave Hunt is a consistently consistent person. Definitely. He's like the Rainman of "God is Love". Yeah. God is Love.



He`s also an excellent driver,yeah.


----------



## caddy (Dec 22, 2006)

Excellent points here Bob....



BobVigneault said:


> Hunt believes in election but he also believes the elect may be turned out of office by a disgruntled constituency (God in this case). So to Hunt, the latent Calvinist gets elected based on his campaign promises to hold to Universalism, Free Will and the Exclusivity of the Love Attribute. When the elected fails to keep his promises ("Read my lips, NO NEW REFORMS!"), he is turned out of office and has to settle for a position as a lobbyist for heretical (reformed) causes.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 22, 2006)

This seems like an appropriate usage of JD's third maxim - " I can make you less ignorant, but I can't make you un-stupid..."

that is all...

-JD


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Dec 22, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> On the serious side, Phil Johnson does have a message rebutting Hunt's stupid little book over on his website that is very good.




I listened to it this AM. Mr Johnson was doing his best to try and find somthing good to say about the book. (I suppose it is his custom when reviewing books to try and find somthing good to say first before going into what was wrong with the book) But anything good he tried to say about it he had to clarify with a negative comment. It was kind of humorous really.

He didn't have anything to say that I wasn't aware of. He just put it alot nicer than I could have. Hunt's book is a lousy rehash of secondary sources. Where he does quote a Calvinistic source he doesn't let that source speak for themselves but has to add his own twist on what is being said. Basically adds in what he thinks they're saying and doesn't let the source text speak for itself.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 22, 2006)

See this thread.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 23, 2006)

MrMerlin777 said:


> In the words of Sam Taylor,"Hum..........?"
> 
> 
> Is it just me or is this statement just a bunch of confusing drivel?
> ...




Who's worse: Dave Hunt or Harold Camping?


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 23, 2006)

bookslover said:


> Who's worse: Dave Hunt or Harold Camping?



Difficult to say but I'd lean toward saying that Camping's error is worse.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Dec 23, 2006)

bookslover said:


> Who's worse: Dave Hunt or Harold Camping?



Seems to me that they're both presuming to sit in judgment where they have no authority to.


----------



## BJClark (Dec 23, 2006)

Pilgrim;



> this thread.



Looking at the above thread...this comment...



> They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all--and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born.



The truth of the matter is we are all damned before we were even born, even in looking at John 3:18 we see this...If Hunt would continue past John 3:16; He would see his own logic fails him.

For me, this is part of the 'working out our own salvation with fear and trembling', looking at God for all that He Is, beyond His loving attributes, 
and realizing and believing HE IS STILL the same GOD!!

It is at this point, I have seen many people repelled by the Gospel, and shriek out with the 'But God is Love' just look at John 3:16 "For God so loved the world..." If God truly called all, then nobody would be repelled by ALL that God IS, they would see and tremble and begin to marvel and be in Awe of Him all the more.

The road to Him would be made wide, and the road to destruction made narrow, because none would be going down the path of destruction.


----------



## Blue Tick (Dec 23, 2006)

Howdy All and I do mean All! Dave Here just checking to the PB. I wanted to let everyone know that I am writing a new book called "Adventures in Arminianism". Now as you all know, there we go again with that word all, I am neither a Calvinist nor Arminian, but a Biblicist. Therefore, being a Biblicist I thought it would only be fair to critique Arminian theology. As I have mentioned before I will not openly debate any Calvinist, but I have a standing offer to publicly debate any Arminian. However, I do have one request before you challenge me to a debate regarding Arminianism please read "Adventures in Arminianism. This may save you and me alot of time.



P.S. Do you guys like cake? I like cake. Well I wanted to invite all the Calvinists who believe my gospel, I mean, the true gospel over for cake and cookies.


Regards.... 

Dave


----------



## turmeric (Dec 23, 2006)

Don't drink the Kool-Aid!


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Dec 23, 2006)

turmeric said:


> Don't drink the Kool-Aid!



Too LATE!!! GGGYYAAAAAACCCKKKKK!!!!!!! (thud)


----------

