Archive for category: Reformed Apologetics

There are no footnotes attached. No names given. But a paragraph has been added into the middle of Dave Hunt’s desperate attempt to escape Acts 13:48 that, when you consider what it says, is one of the most amazing examples of “destroy the foundations of your entire life’s work just because you detest the freedom of God that is proclaimed

I have already documented the problems with the first attempt Dave Hunt made to remove the testimony of Acts 13:48 in my open letter to him. Here’s the specific section of that work. It should be noted I replied to each of the points Hunt offered in the original edition of WLIT? And though Hunt failed to even attempt to

One of the passages that has received a rather wide range of treatment from Mr. Hunt in his anti-Calvinistic crusade is Acts 13:48. The reason is clear to see. A quick review of the leading committee-led translations of the Bible in the English language presents a striking consistency in rendering this verse’s last clause: KJV and as many as were

I forgot to mention something very important earlier when documenting the disappearance of 1 John 5:1 from the new edition of What Love is This? I passed by, improperly, the response that Hunt had initially offered. I recall a meeting in which Hunt claimed he had “replied” to my documentation of his error on 1 John 5:1. But a quick

I have often spoken of Dave Hunt’s utter entrapment in the hold of tradition. “Blinded By Tradition” is a phrase that has appeared numerous times over the past couple of years. For Dave, his tradition = the Word of God, and hence it cannot be questioned. And the lenses are so thick that Hunt honestly sees on a page of

One of the first errors many noted in Hunt’s work was his utter misrepresentation of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Since the books original appearance numerous writers, myself included, have pointed out Hunt’s error, but he has remained doggedly unwilling to admit what is so obvious to any unbiased observer. In my original open letter to him I wrote: A Glowing Example:

Sometime last week I noted the odd, rather disconnected criticism offered by Peter Leithart of my book, The God Who Justifies. At the same time I noted that the criticism comes out of the blue; it makes no attempt to establish a context, etc. As such, I simply said, “We will see what develops.” I had started to write a

This past weekend I was again at the Covenant of Grace Church in St. Charles, Missouri (I give all that info so that if any of Dave Hunt’s folks want to get the tapes, they can order them!). Friday night and all day Saturday I spoke on the topic of Debating Calvinism. I used the recording of the Chuck Crismier

Stream the program | Save to disk (click on “save”)

That was interesting! Second time I’ve been on a national radio broadcast where the host spent more time debating me than my opponent did. 🙂 The host was more Arminian than Dave Hunt was, actually, so the lead ins and the questions presented were rather, uh, less than fair to the Reformed side. But that’s OK, I appreciated the fact

Van Lees and the fine folks at Covenant of Grace Church are having me in for a three day seminar. Friday night and Saturday I will be dealing with Debating Calvinism and Dave Hunt’s attacks upon the Reformed faith and why evangelicals, and especially folks from the Calvary Chapel side of things, seem to embrace his less-than-accurate representations. On Sunday

I am scheduled to do a one-hour radio broadcast with Dave Hunt on the Viewpoint radio program with host Chuck Crismier this coming Wednesday at 4PM ET. Here is the link. I believe you can listen on line. There are archives as well for those who will not be able to listen at that time. One hour isn’t much, but

I’ve started a brief response, but to be honest, does anyone really understand what he said? Is there a point here? I feel like these random thoughts are supposed to be part of a bigger picture, but the rest of the presentation disappeared or something. We’ll see what develops.

I guess it is a matter of figuring anyone Gail Riplinger would attack can’t be all bad, but I’ve always kept David Cloud, a well known KJV Only fundamentalist writer, in a little different “group” in my thinking than most of the rest of the KJV Only crowd. But of late I’ve had to rethink that, given his adding anti-Calvinism

I invited David Cloud to defend his constant attacks upon Calvinism on The Dividing Line. I also made sure he knew we would arrange our schedule in any fashion necessary to meet his time frame. His response, as usual, was to decline the challenge. He seems to feel he has the right to allege, the right to attack, but has

I just did a “blog run.” This might be a bit longer if l0g0s’ blog even worked anymore, but this was more than enough to remind us that there is never any end to the zaniness you find on the web… First, David Cloud, the KJV Only anti-Calvinist Fundamentalist Baptist writer (who had the guts to criticize Gail Riplinger, at

I was asked today if I would be on with Dave Hunt on December 1st on Chuck Crismier’s national radio program to discuss Calvinism. Obviously, a single hour isn’t a debate, and I will offer the debate during the program once again, but it’s better than nothing, I suppose. We will keep you informed of further developments.

A few months ago some back and forth with Rob Schlapfer, owner of The Discerning Reader, appeared on my blog. I thought that while DR was taking a decidedly non-Reformed direction, at least the personal animosity expressed by Mr. Schlapfer had subsided. Unfortunately, my hopes on that level diminished when he sent me a note echoing the personal nastiness associated

I’ll be with Lance Quinn and the folks at The Bible Church of Little Rock this Sunday morning to speak on Sola Gratia. I will be illustrating what it means in the preaching of the Lord Jesus from John chapter six. See the calendar page for further trips (two more after this before we head to LA for the debate!)

Open Theism teaches that God does not have exhaustive divine foreknowledge of future events that are determined by free-will choices of men. (Open Theists are, at least, consistent Arminians: they, unlike their more historical brothers, recognize that libertarianism is the lynch-pin, the central focus, the heart, of their theology, and they are seeking to defend it fully, recognizing that God’s

Presbyterian & Reformed has released a new version of an old-time classic. S. Lance Quinn has updated The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas. This work contains a great deal more information than the original, including an annotated bibliography. Our readers might find the following entries interesting, if not somewhat amusing: White, James R.

I should have noted this days ago, but I will be on KDOV radio, which covers Southern Oregon and Northern California, Tuesday morning, August 17th, at 8:05AM, talking about Debating Calvinism. Dave Hunt has already told his side, now it is my turn. Of course, I am open to being on with Dave, but so far, Dave isn’t open to

Below I noted an only semi-fictitious go-around with some rC’s (for those who haven’t been reading the blog for a while, that stands for “reformed Catholic”) where the constant shifting of the ground and circular argumentation was highlighted. And almost as if someone felt I needed a new example, this morning Mr. Johnson decided to chime in on the new

Next Tuesday on the Dividing Line we will discuss yesterday’s In Touch radio broadcast. Charles Stanley not only insisted that conviction of sin is not a necessary part of conversion (conviction of a felt need is), but his comments on John 6 left a number of listeners wondering if he had adopted the Dave Hunt Translation. Remember, the DL airs

I get the Berean Call’s e-mail newsletter/update, and scan through it as time allows to see what comments are made regarding Dave’s anti-Calvinism campaign. I’ve seen some interesting comments. But this one was worth a reply:  Dear Mr. Hunt,  I enjoyed reading Debating Calvinism. I sat in the Calvinist camp for many years….Why don’t Calvinists preach their “doctrines of grace”

As our kind readers have undoubtedly noticed of late, I am spending a lot of time thinking about, and responding to, those who have decided that to be Reformed no longer means we have a clear, compelling knowledge of the gospel itself. While these men continue to call themselves “Reformed,” some cannot even any longer affirm the imputation of Christ’s

I can’t believe this. I was told yesterday that “Lou Rugg–as he is known in that pit of despond, that concentrated mass of theological ignorance called PalTalk (“Don’t have anything meaningful to say? Come on over!”)—has been playing an edited version of our “debate” (talk about using a term loosely) in various rooms in PalTalk. Evidently he has inserted his