Archive for category: Reformed Apologetics

One way you can detect unfounded tradition masquerading as “biblical beliefs” is to note the prevalence of “this passage can’t be saying this” combined with little or no positive “the text clearly says this” followed by meaningful exegesis. When someone can only tell you what the Bible doesn’t say, but can’t tell you positively what it does, they have a

Last week I replied, briefly, to Eric Svendsen’s comments on particular redemption/limited atonement. My 1000 word response garnered a pretty quick response over three times that length that ended with, “I did not address every point in those articles since my intent for the blog entry was merely to clarify my own position, not take on Alpha and Omega Ministries

So I’m thinking about trying to find some way of wrapping up the What Love is This? series of blog entries, and so I ask myself, “Given that Hunt accused Calvinists of misusing the subjunctive in Debating Calvinism, I wonder if he inserted something relevant to that allegation in this new edition?” A quick search for “subjunctive” in the e-text

I can’t tell you how many of our channel regulars have been asking me, “So, are you going to respond to Eric Svendsen’s comments on limited atonement?” Obviously, Dr. Svendsen’s audience and my own overlap to a large degree, so when Eric makes comments about why he can’t be a full 5-pt. Calvinist (and in the process makes comments about

In examining the “serious exegesis” offered by Osborne in Grace Unlimted of key texts in John we have noted that when Arminians seek to interact with such strong statements of God’s sovereignty they impress an external grid down upon the text that limits its voice and mutes its testimony. We have seen Osborne skim across the top of the text,

Is it really that hard to say, “Wow, man, how did that get in there? That paragraph is just so wrong. Dave had not been feeling well that night, and, wow, we apologize, retract, and in general do penance for having pawned such tripe off on the Christian community as a whole.” But no, evidently, the powers that be at

I simply could not resist responding to some more of the “serious Arminian exegesis” offered by Osborne in the Pinnock edited work, Grace Unlimited (BHP, 1975). Right after the section on John 6 comes a section on John 10:14, 14-18, 27-30. One is once again impressed with the fact that Arminian “exegesis” skims over the top of the text, spending

The source The Berean Call utilized to attempt substantiation of the wild claims about a Hebrew original of Acts 13:48 that is meant to cast doubt upon the actual translation of the passage (all in the service of anti-Calvinism) turns out to be anti-Trinitarian as well. Their statement of faith includes this line: “The Holy Spirit is likened to the

The irony found in these exegetical notes is that the actual wording of the text is always subjugated by the author to an outside interpretational grid that itself would have to be derived from exegesis of other passages, etc. Osborne begins by stating “While there is some truth to the above statements, they for the most part neglect John’s other

This morning I was noting the words of a “I’m such a soft and warm and ecumenical and Catholic Calvinist that I believe in baptismal regeneration and temporary justification and loss of true salvation” attempting to dig himself out of yet another hole he dug himself into by going way beyond the bounds in trying to take shots at yours

It was simply out of place. When I ran into the “Acts 1-15 was written in Hebrew” paragraph in the second edition of What Love is This? it just seemed strange. And now I’m starting to figure out why. It is not that Hunt hadn’t already demonstrated a very sad willingness to not only pontificate upon topics he does not

More on this later this evening, I hope, but the Berean Call has started to send out an e-mail to those asking for the sources for Hunt’s outrageous “redacted Hebrew text prophecied by the Dead Sea Scrolls which just happens, when translated by unnamed scholars, to not teach Calvinism” stuff. As I started looking over the list I immediately recognized

OK, some of you are going, “Wow, cut Dave a break. You are harder on him than the Muslims.” Yes, I am. See, I hold a Christian apologist, who is invited into the pulpits of churches all across the world, to a completely different standard than I do a Muslim apologist. I expect a Muslim apologist to be…a Muslim! I

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