"The doctrine of Redemption is one of the most important doctrines of the system of faith. A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief.
   Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when he died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ’s death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in hell as for Peter who mounted to heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was as true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High.
   Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when he died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ’s death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, “What did Christ design to do by his death?” we answer that question by asking him another — “What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by his death?” For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ’s love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold — we are not afraid to say what we believe — that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving “a multitude which no man can number;” and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom he died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father’s throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned, we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in hell when Christ, according to some men’s account, died to save them. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

11:05:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Today on the DL: S.M. Davis' Sermon, Finally

03/21/2006 - James White

   I listened to both of Dr. Davis' anti-Calvinism sermons today on my ride (they were worse than I remembered) and since a month from today I am debating an attorney who is a member of his church on this same topic, I would like to go through the sermon and highlight all the straw-man arguments, etc. I will let my future opponent know of the programs in the sincere hope that our debate will be as straw-man free as possible. And since Davis' stuff is almost nothing more than Hunt's materials organized and presented more forcefully, there's a wide application for everyone facing that kind of argumentation.
Quick Update: Actually took the first half hour to discuss the re-emergence (no pun intended) of the imputation issue, then got into the Davis sermon. Here's the program.

01:00:00 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

Dave Hunt: Utterly Without Willingness to Learn

03/01/2006 - James White

   I was just referred to the Berean Call radio program from 2/26 (you can hear it here) where Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon discussed Calvinism again. There's really nothing new here---same stuff Hunt has been saying from the start. And that's the point. There is almost no difference in the falsehoods, errors, straw-men, and simple mind-boggling ignorance that Hunt demonstrated in our very first radio program years ago---before the first of many error-filled versions of What Love is This? cursed the bookshelves of America. He has not heard a word of what I, or anyone else, has said to him. Nothing. Willful, obstinate, documented refusal to speak the truth. It is shameful.
   But the worst thing about listening to this short sound clip is this: one of the very first things I pointed out to Dave Hunt was that he had mis-cited Matthew 23:37 in his newsletter. I have documented this. I have pointed out the exegetical importance of recognizing the context of Matthew 23 and the distinction between "you" and "your children" and the role this has in the Lord's denunciations of the Pharisees. Hunt has had no meaningful response, of course, but despite this, as you listen to him rambling on in this sound clip, prepare yourself for his recitation of Matthew 23:37. Yes, once again, he mis-quotes the text! He can't even learn to accurately represent the words of Scripture! It is simply beyond all comprehension. Just amazing. Yes, I will be playing the clip, Lord willing, on the DL tomorrow.

17:31:03 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives