A Calvinist replies to Dave Hunt

[orthotomeo]

This is an excerpt from a reply Dave Hunt received from a long-time Calvinist friend. This is only a brief part of the whole article. I have replied to these points the Calvinist made in response to Hunt's book, WHAT LOVE IS THIS?

To summarize, here are just a few reasons why I have no problem as a Calvinist saying that God can sincerely offer something to those He knows cannot accept, to those whom He withholds the grace to be able to do so.

1) Mysteries and paradoxes are not sound arguments to base ones theology on.

Not sure what he means here, but it doesn't matter. The idea of offering something to someone YOU rendered incapable of accepting it, then expecting your offer to be taken as genuine, and THEN condemning them for not accepting your offer, is neither a mystery nor a paradox. It is, at the very least, a contradiction. At worst, it is insane. Either way, it is not the work of the God of the Bible.

2) Christ teaches the free offer of the gospel to whosoever will and also teaches mans inability to respond.

I agree with the first part. I'm still waiting for someone to establish the second part from Scripture.

3) Scripture is filled with numerous examples that are the exact opposite of what you [Hunt] contend: man is in fact responsible and God is sincere when He commands that which He knows we cannot do.

I'd love to see these numerous examples, but for some strange reason he didn't offer any here. A chapter/verse citation or two would have been enough.

4) (a) It does no violence to reason to assert God's sincerity while knowing they will not or cannot respond. (b) Nor does it do violence to reason to assert God's sincerity even though He withholds His grace.

(a) It does violence to reason when HE willed them to be unable. That makes a liar of the non-lying God. (b) This, too, makes God a liar. You can't sincerely offer something to someone when you already sincerely decided they WON'T get it! I challenge anyone to disprove that.

"Violence to reason" isn't (or shouldn't be) the point; violence to the nature of God as revealed in the Bible IS the point.

5) It is completely consistent with man's free agency.

This is doubletalk. If it is consistent, it is consistent with free agency only when God regenerates someone and gives them the ability and the desire to believe. Otherwise, it's meaningless.

6) It does no violence to God's character.

Already commented on this. This is the #1 offense of Calvinism, in my opinion.

7) That which God withholds does not inhibit anyone's ability to come to Him if they so desire.

I CANNOT BELIEVE HE ACTUALLY WROTE THIS DOUBLETALK. I'm still actually speechless when I read it.

8) That which God withholds is something that fallen man doesn't want in the first place.

And Scripture says this...where?

Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. This tactic avoids dealing with how badly this doctrine insults God's nature by shifting the focus from God to man's theoretical inability/lack of desire to be saved. It's a dodge, plain and simple.

Calvinists can't have this both ways. God is insincere for offering salvation to those He doesn't want to receive it, and won't enable to receive it. I believe many Calvinists really do see this problem. But to avoid facing it head-on, they switch gears to the inability issue, which is completely irrelevant to the issue of Who God is and what He tells us He can/cannot do.

9) The objections you bring up can be used using your theological stance regarding foreknowledge (as to God knowing what one will do and still sincerely making a free offer to those He knows will not respond)

This response assumes God foreknows each and every yet-future, still-nonexistent choice every person will ever make. That is probably what Hunt believes, as most do. But I do not know where the Bible teaches it; in fact, there is biblical evidence to the contrary.

o.