G*******s
发帖数: 4956 | 1 Blinded By Tradition:
An Open Letter to Dave Hunt
Regarding His Newly Published Attack Upon the Reformation, What Love Is This
? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God
James White
Updated 5/16/02, see bottom of file
Dear Dave,
In the period of time since I finally received my own copy of your book (you
may recall I scanned through it while standing at your table in St. Louis a
t the PFO Conference) I have gone through a number of different emotions. A
t first I was just going to do one Dividing Line program about it, and then
simply work toward setting up a web page with various contributors correctin
g your errors and refuting your argumentation while pressing you to follow t
hrough on the public debate that you have, as you recall, agreed to twice no
w (once in writing last year, and while we spoke a few weeks ago in St. Loui
s). But as I started going through and marking all the personal references,
I came across so many errors, and so many tremendously false assertions, ci
rcular arguments, etc., that I truly began to understand why those who had a
lready seen the book, or portions thereof, were so upset by it. But then to
day I ran into a section where you quoted me and then made a truly amazing s
tatement. I refer to page 306, where we read the following:
The gospel of God’s grace, which seemingly is offered to whosoever will bel
ieve, must be imposed---and that, only upon those who God has elected. As W
hite explains, this is why Irresistible Grace is an absolute necessity:
Unregenerate man is fully capable of understanding the facts of the gospel:
he is simply incapable, due to his corruption and enmity, to submit himself
to that gospel....
This is a terrible attack upon the gospel, rendering powerless what Paul dec
lares is “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16)! And this is wha
t White calls “the Reformed position.”
I sat back, recalling the conversation we had standing at your table. Dean
McCoy was standing there. You raised the issue of whether Calvinism is “th
e gospel,” and objected to the Reformed insistence upon that idea. You spe
cifically made the point that you believe Calvinists are saved. I wonder, h
owever, in light of your assertion that I am guilty of launching a “terribl
e attack” upon the gospel, even to the point of rendering the gospel powerl
ess, as well as your oft repeated statement in your book that you find Calvi
nism an affront to your God (in opposition, it seems, to mine), how consiste
nt you are at this point? I wonder how different that conversation would ha
ve been had I happened to have stumbled upon the above quoted statement imme
diately?
Of course, I find it highly ironic that you would say that the Reformed
belief is denying the power of the gospel. You are the one who says that t
he gospel must be joined to the autonomous act of human faith for it to come
to fruition. You are the one who insists that grace must be capable of fai
lure to be true grace. You are the one who denies to God the freedom to lov
e as we love, and insist that He must fail in His efforts to save every sing
le person to be truly worthy of your worship. How your synergistic system s
omehow makes the gospel more powerful than the Reformed proclamation of a pe
rfect Savior who saves without fail I cannot begin to imagine.
I am writing this as an open letter, Dave, because you have placed the
disagreements between us into the public realm with the publication of your
book, What Love is This? Given the prominence assigned to the citation of m
y work, The Potter’s Freedom, and, most importantly, the associated allegat
ions of Scripture twisting, eisegesis, and other serious charges, I believe
it best to respond to you openly so that the fair minded reader can judge fo
r himself who has fairly dealt with the issue and who has not. You know tha
t I wrote to you privately when I learned you were writing this book and exh
orted you to reconsider your course of action. I tried to be to you a true
and biblical friend in warning you that the comments I had heard you make on
our radio discussion on KPXQ radio in Phoenix indicated to me a deep and ab
iding misunderstanding of the most basic issues in this area (including such
topics as systematic and historical theology, hermeneutics and exegesis, an
d historical studies). Hence, I believe that since I truly attempted to giv
e you sound advice before the publication of your book, the time has come to
make our conversation one that is fully public in nature, hoping that even
if you do not choose to hear words of correction, others will be edified and
blessed by them anyway.
I will not attempt to deal with all of the areas in which I find proble
ms of fact and argumentation in your book. Such would require a work of equ
al length to The Potter’s Freedom. Instead, I will focus upon some of the
key issues in your work, for I believe once your basic thesis has been refut
ed, the rest of the book follows, since you repeat your thesis over and over
again in different contexts. Also, I am organizing a project in which many
Reformed men and women, laypeople, in general, with some ministers as well,
will write shorter sections on various aspects of your book. Truly, Dave,
I believe you have left yourself open to refutation and criticism in every a
spect of your work. I believe we are bound to provide an answer, not only o
ut of love and dedication to the truth, but due to the fact that, as some of
the essays being written will document, you were informed of most of these
problems before you went to press.
Elitism?
I would like to start with your assertion, even made in personal letter
s to me, that to criticize your lack of understanding of the Reformed positi
on, and your lack of scholarly training in history, the biblical languages,
exegesis, etc., is to somehow engage in “elitism.” You have directly call
ed me an elitist, as you will recall. It seems you believe that seminary ed
ucation, training in Greek and Hebrew, study of theology, etc., is not neces
sary for the task of engaging such topics as soteriology, etc. And yet, I f
ound it fascinating how often you yourself make mention of the original lang
uages, for example. You refer to Greek terms, even though, as you have ofte
n admitted, you cannot read Greek. You eschew professional training in hist
ory, yet, you include chapters of historical argumentation. This raises a p
roblem, of course. You have compiled page after page of simply false argume
ntation as a result. Your handling of Greek is filled with errors of basic
grammar and meaning. You have mishandled even the few lexical sources you h
ave referenced. You ignore the impact of grammar and syntax upon translatio
n. Your historical sections, especially when dealing with Augustine and Cal
vin, are marked by such a level of unfair use of sources (including your fai
lure to cite relevant historical facts that would either contradict, or subs
tantially ameliorate, the polemic argument you are attempting to press forwa
rd) that they parallel, sadly, the rhetoric of a Jimmy Swaggart, who likewis
e railed against Calvin in the most unfair and biased manner. Yet, when I h
ave pointed out similar errors in the past, you have resorted to the same as
sertion of “elitism.” One wonders how to respond to you. Would you liste
n to a person who is not trained in Greek before one who is? I am almost co
nvinced that you would.
Some of the other things I have encountered in your book truly make me
wonder, Dave. I simply could not believe that the source you used to come u
p with the identification of Augustine as “the first real Roman Catholic”
was none other than Peter Ruckman himself. Peter Ruckman, Dave? Gail Ripli
nger’s sole challenger for the title of “Worst of the KJV Onlyites”? Wha
t do you think Peter Ruckman would think of your assertion that the KJV’s r
endering of Acts 13:48 was determined by the “corrupt” Latin Vulgate? Ind
eed, how did the staunch defender of Gail Riplinger, Joe Chambers, endorse a
book that would dismiss a KJV rendering? An amazing thing to see! I would
love to ask Chambers about this.
Another item that leaves one’s jaw on the table is the fact that The B
erean Call makes the tape of our radio discussion available, and yet, when y
ou make reference to it in your book, you misrepresent it! When you referen
ce our discussion of Matthew 23:37 in your book (p. 363), you somehow forget
to mention that you had mis-cited the text in your newsletter, which was wh
at led to the question in the first place! Don’t you think people may just
listen to the tape and realize this, resulting in questions about the accur
acy of your representations, Dave? You likewise said “White countered that
Christ was not weeping over Jerusalem....” No, I pointed out that you wer
e conflating Luke and Matthew, and that in the passage at hand, Matthew 23:3
7, Jesus did not weep. These are little issues, but they are issues that sp
eak to the accuracy of the presentation being made.
As you admitted in your book, you have received numerous words of couns
el against the publication of this book. Tom DelNoce has informed you that
your work, in its final form, continues to contain clear misrepresentations
of the topic at hand. He is still convinced you have not taken the first st
eps to truly seek to understand fairly the position you are critiquing. And
you will recall that I likewise warned you. It seems Rob Zins likewise tri
ed to help you, and I can think of a number of others. You pressed on despi
te the best efforts of many who have spent years studying the issue that you
seemingly mastered in less than a year. Now the work is out, and the issue
is beyond your personal welfare. The issue is now a matter of speaking the
truth, and refuting error.
The Tone of the Work
I was disappointed in the tone of the work, of course. It is never enj
oyable to be accused of twisting God’s Word. It is sad to see the level of
rhetoric you chose to use. Indeed, when the original source being reviewed
contains constant ad-hominem argumentation against the proponents of the sy
stem it is critiquing, any response is made very difficult. I have had to g
o back over this letter more than once, toning down my words. I am just a m
an, and I become agitated when falsely accused of things (and sadly, Dave, y
ou have put in print many false accusations against me, which I shall docume
nt in the body of this letter). But I have sought to go back over those sec
tions where I am dealing with your citation of my own work and have sought t
o make sure that my reply is properly focused upon the issue at hand. But e
ven when dealing with general issues, when you are reviewing a book that is
highly rhetorical in nature, as yours is, and one that contains basic errors
of fact (that are then turned into weapons with which the truth is beaten),
it is hard to respond without a certain element of “strength.” Indeed, i
t is hard to see how your statements are any more charitable toward Calvinis
ts than are your works on Catholicism or Mormonism.
Organizing this response has been difficult as well. There are so many
things to address. So I will begin with a fundamental problem with your wr
iting: you do not fairly and properly use sources, whether historical, lexic
al, or theological. It is hard to determine if you just use secondary sourc
es without checking the originals, or if, due to the fact that you have chos
en to eschew professional training in the relevant fields, you simply do not
know how to use these sources properly. I cannot determine which it is. I
can only document the reality of the problem.
A Glowing Example: Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the Atonement
On page 19 of your book, Dave, you make the assertion that Charles Spur
geon “unequivocally” denied particular redemption (limited atonement). Ev
ery single Calvinist who has done any meaningful reading in Spurgeon will be
forced to immediately dismiss you as a very poor researcher on the basis of
this statement. Here I provide the quote as you gave it, placing the mater
ials you did not include in bold (I thank Tom Ascol for first noting this an
d rushing me the context). Folks who wonder if you are being fair to August
ine or Calvin should note your willingness to be completely and utterly inac
curate in your representation of someone as recent as Spurgeon:
I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to
limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such
a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the t
hought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In
Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom,
my eye discovers no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of
Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world,
but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Onc
e admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a
Divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited
value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. The
intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering
, but does not change it into a finite work.
Anyone familiar with Spurgeon knows what he means by “the intent of the Div
ine purpose” here (he means what all us Calvinists mean: it was God’s inte
ntion to save the elect in the atonement). But the rest of the section you
quoted from makes it crystal clear:
Blessed be God, His elect on earth are to be counted by millions, I believe,
and the days are coming, brighter days than these, when there shall be mult
itudes upon multitudes brought to know the Saviour, and to rejoice in Him.
Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It
is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all me
n; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is so
mething in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be o
ften associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the th
eory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition nece
ssarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He
intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be tru
e, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before H
e came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who
had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's in
tention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we hav
e His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimsto
ne, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, ac
cording to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. T
hat seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of tho
se consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Chr
istian doctrine of special and particular redemption.
That is on the very next page after the one you quoted! Spurgeon refers to
your position, Dave, as “a thousand times more repulsive than any of those
consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christ
ian doctrine of special and particular redemption”! Yes, Spurgeon was uneq
uivocal alright: only he said the exact opposite of what you indicated! A q
uick scan of the relevant materials at www.spurgeon.org reveals just how com
pletely in error your assertion is, and how many sermons affirm Spurgeon’s
belief in particular redemption. Here is one of them: http://www.spurgeon.o
rg/sermons/0181.htm. I quote him directly:
We hold--we are not afraid to say that we believe--that Christ came into thi
s 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 mus
t, 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 ef
fectual 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 Go
d foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Chr
ist, according to some men's account, died to save them.
You really should hasten to retract this grossly errant assertion concerning
Spurgeon. For those of us who have even a passing familiarity with the gre
at English preacher, your comments about him were outrageous. The misuse of
the quote from Spurgeon’s biography is simply indefensible, Dave. Do you
not think that we have these sources at hand? Will you instruct your publis
her to retract this statement in the next printing of the book, along with a
note apologizing for such an error? Or will you ignore this word of correc
tive advice as you have ignored so many others that have been provided to yo
u?
Following Norman’s Error
Another problem I encountered took me back, simply because I had taken
so much time to correct Dr. Geisler when he made the exact same error! I re
fer to your denial of the biblical truth that saving faith is a gift from Go
d. Specifically, you attempted to muster a whole range of Greek scholars to
your side, however, you did not bother to respond to the refutations alread
y in print (including my own). The vast majority of those you cite on pages
361-362 do not deal with the position that I presented in The Potter’s Fre
edom. Yet, despite the fact that you did not offer a refutation of my exege
sis, you did not avoid taking a gratuitous swipe at me anyway. You wrote in
reference to Ephesians 2:8-9,
Calvin himself acknowledged, “But they commonly misinterpret this text, and
restrict the word ‘gift’ to faith alone. But Paul....does not mean that
faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God....” Th
us White and other zealous Calvinists who today insist that faith is the gif
t are contradicting John Calvin himself. (p. 362).
Why did you not inform your readers, Dave, that 1) my presentation says that
the entirety of the preceding clause is the antecedent of touto (which you
errantly have as tauto on the same page) not faith only, and that 2) Calvin
was disagreeing with those who said faith alone is the gift? I gave the ent
irety of Calvin’s quotation on pp. 317-318, and then explained the error No
rman Geisler made by citing Calvin exactly as you did on pp. 318-319. You i
gnore the rebuttal and the offered citations regarding Calvin’s view, repea
t Norman’s error, and then accuse me of disagreeing with Calvin, when it is
self-evident to any honest reader that I am not.
One might dismiss this kind of error if it was alone, but it is the nor
m in your work, not the exception. I have already shown your complete misre
presentation of Spurgeon above. Then we have you repeating Dr. Geisler’s e
rror on Calvin, and accusing me of contradicting Calvin when that is not the
case at all. Then we have your comments, immediately after your complete m
istranslation of Acts 13:48 (refuted below) regarding the chapter in my book
titled “Unconditional Election a Necessity.” Why did you not tell your r
eaders why the chapter is included in The Potter’s Freedom Dave? As you wo
uld have to know, having read it, I included that short chapter for definiti
onal purposes. Dr. Geisler offered a completely a-historical definition of
unconditional election. The entire purpose of the chapter was to demonstrat
e that the definition was well known and well established and that Dr. Geisl
er was in error in redefining it. Yet, ignoring the plain purpose of the ch
apter, you take another unwarranted shot:
There are assertions---fallible human opinions---which both Boyce and White
admit express merely a “theory.” This theory must be tested by Scripture.
Further quotations of men’s opinions follow in the remainder of White’s
chapter.
Of course that’s what the chapter is about! I was not defending the doctri
ne from the Scriptures in that chapter. As you well know, I defended that d
octrine from the pages of Scripture elsewhere. So why the gratuitous refere
nce to fallible human opinions? How else are you going to define the histor
ical meaning of the doctrine? Did I not write on page 124, “Given the conf
usion introduced by Dr. Geisler...it is necessary to establish the historic
meaning of the phrase before we can respond to CBF’s unique viewpoint”? I
concluded the chapter with these words:
The Reformed position on election is, first and foremost, a biblical one. Y
es, it flows from the sovereignty of God and the deadness of man in sin; how
ever, it is just as clearly and inarguably stated in Scripture. So we turn
to the biblical text and CBF’s attempts to respond to those passages that t
each this divine truth.
Also, I never used the word “theory” of the doctrine in that chapter. Boy
ce did so, using that word in its 19th century meaning.
John 6 and Your Accusation of Eisegesis
Most amazing is your cavalier and inaccurate handling of John 6. You o
bviously recognize how important it is, given the space you dedicate to it,
but we are again left wondering, “Where’s the exegesis”? Rather than dea
ling with the presentation offered, you ignore the exegetical content and in
stead provide us with a classic example of how blindness to tradition leads
to errors in teaching. Rather than dealing with the grammatical and context
ual issues I presented (the text stands as a whole, and flows perfectly from
beginning to end), you ignore them as if they are not even there. Allow me
to document the many, many basic errors in your writing on this subject, an
d clear this glorious passage of the calumnies you have heaped upon it in ch
apter 20 of your own book.
On page 329, Dave, you speak of my “enthusiasm” regarding John 6:35-4
5. That is quite true. And while you quote a number of my conclusions, you
assiduously avoid quoting the exegesis that leads to the conclusions (and,
of course, you ignore the vast majority thereof in your attempted rebuttal,
something anyone who reads both works seriously will note). You engage in a
glaring act of equivocation when you write,
“Unconditional election and irresistible grace” are found in this passage?
Yarborough, Piper, D.A. Carson, and J.I. Packer (among others) also think
so. Yet the words “unconditional” and “irresistible” aren’t even there
, nor can they be found elsewhere in the Bible. (p. 330).
And Jehovah’s Witnesses dismiss the Trinity because the term does not appea
r in the Bible. So what, Dave? The concept does, and this is the case with
John 6 as well. “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.” Those a
re Jesus’ words. It is the Father’s giving that results in the coming of
those so given. The giving precedes and therefore determines the coming. G
iving is a divine act, and since it precedes the very existence of those so
given, it must be unconditional (hence, as I noted, unconditional election).
But, beyond this, Jesus says that all that the Father gives Him will come
to Him. Not some. Not most. All. Such can not be said in your synergisti
c system where grace tries, but fails, to save at least some. What do you c
all the belief that God never fails to bring His elect people unto salvation
, but that they infallibly come in faith to Christ? It’s called “irresist
ible grace,” Dave: when God raises the dead sinner to life, that newly rege
nerated believer clings in faith to Christ. So, as you can see, you do not
need to use the terms “unconditional” or “irresistible” to have those di
vine truths right there in the text. And no matter how much you dislike the
m, Dave, they are still there. As long as John 6:37 remains in the Bible, p
eople will embrace the doctrines of grace.
You then wrote, “And God ‘limits this drawing to the same individuals
given by the Father to the Son’?” Yes, Dave, He does. As I pointed out,
the passage is explaining the unbelief of the Jews. Remember that the end
of John 6 all these would-be disciples, other than the twelve, walk away. T
hey were surface followers who were scandalized by the gospel message. That
is why Jesus refers to their unbelief, and explains their unbelief in the w
ords of John 6:37ff. The key issue that your entire presentation fails on i
s this: all that are drawn by the Father to the Son are raised by the Son on
the last day. To be raised by the Son is to be given eternal life. Jesus
gives eternal life to all those given to Him by the Father (6:39). See the
connection? The effectual drawing of the Father to the Son is what guarante
es the truth of 6:37: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.” Why
? Because God draws them. Beautiful consistency is the hallmark of sound e
xegesis of the inspired Word.
I truly believe you recognize that you cannot deal with this passage, D
ave. Your attempts to poison the well, engender an emotional response, and
in general avoid any and all meaningful interaction with the text, indicate
this. You seem to be almost pleading with your audience, knowing they are e
ntering dangerous ground to even read John 6:37-45 and consider what it mean
s. And truly, any synergist is in grave danger reading these words of the L
ord! They are so plain, so clear, so consistent. I have seen so many come
to embrace the doctrines of grace as a result of a study of this passage. Y
ou are so fearful of the passage that between the introduction of the text a
nd your first attempt to deal with it, you insert all sorts of examples of s
pecial pleading. You write,
Read the entire passage carefully; that is not what Christ says, as we shall
see. Whatever Christ means, it must be in agreement with the message of Go
d’s entire Word - and neither Unconditional Election nor Irresistible Grace
qualifies.
See, the difference between us, Dave, is that I can simply let the passage s
peak for itself. I can go directly to the text and walk through it and let
it address each issue in turn. You have to attempt to persuade people that
they can’t possibly find the doctrines of grace here. Look at the effort y
ou put into trying to poison the well before you finally offer your “explan
ation” of the passage. On page 330 you talk about “Careless Extrapolation
” as if the entire section is even slightly relevant. You conclude the sec
tion with a paragraph that basically says, “Hey, I’ve already refuted this
stuff. Don’t sweat this. I know this passage sounds like Calvinism, but
trust me, it isn’t.” Then you have a section, “A Troubling Tendency,” w
hich is nothing more than ad-hominem argumentation against Calvinists, all b
ased upon your “God can’t love freely and grace must be given to all to be
grace” fallacy that I and half a dozen others have attempted to disabuse y
ou of. And then you seem so concerned that you add another repetitious sect
ion, based upon your fallacious understanding of “whosoever” (refuted belo
w in reference to John 3:16) titled “The Overwhelming Testimony of Scriptur
e.” Now, if I argued against your point by simply repeating that what I be
lieve is the “overwhelming testimony of Scripture,” you would eventually h
ave to say, “Lets get specific here and not just cling to generalities.”
That is why I don’t argue that way, of course. You know John 6 at the very
least seems to teach the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation, so you h
ave to say, “Well, it can’t mean that, since I’ve already proven otherwis
e” (the fact that your previous argumentation is filled with the same kind
of circular argumentation notwithstanding). Why do you have to insist the p
assage cannot possibly mean what the Reformed exegetes say it does? Why not
just prove the impossibility of our exegesis?
On page 332 you boldly accuse the Reformed of “annulling” the teachin
g of Scripture and “boldly changing” the Scriptures. In each instance you
are referring to the fact that Calvinists engage in meaningful interpretati
on of the text, recognizing that it is simply without merit to use the kind
of “Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance” interpretation you provide in your b
ook, Dave. For example, at one point you note how many times “whosoever”
appears in the King James Version of the Bible. You drew conclusions based
upon the appearance of the English word, not seeming to understand that the
term would come from a number of different Hebrew and Greek words or phrases
. Even suggesting that an English listing of the term “whosoever” is slig
htly relevant to the usage at any particular passage while ignoring the part
icular grammar and syntax of the text in question is without merit. It is a
false and slanderous accusation to say that I, or any other Reformed writer
, seeks to “change” the text of the Scriptures. Just because you do not c
hoose to prepare yourself to understand the original language texts of the B
ible does not give you the right or basis to accuse those who do of “changi
ng” the text of Holy Writ. In a later portion of this letter I provide a f
ull discussion of “whoever” and refute your insinuation that I personally
am “twisting” (your specific assertion is that this is a “slight twist,”
p. 270) John 3:16 to recognize that it means “every one believing.”
Further, you are incorrect to say that Calvinists interpret John 12:32
and “all men” as “all the elect.” Recognizing again the context of the
passage (the coming of Greeks in search of Jesus), we allow the phrase to ha
ve its natural meaning: all kinds of men, Jew and Gentile. And you are like
wise incorrect in your constant assertion (repeated for the umpteenth time o
n page 332) that Calvinists believe God will save “only a select few.” Th
e irony is that the very passage you completely misrepresented regarding Spu
rgeon earlier in your work contained these very words on the very same page
you cited:
Think of the numbers upon whom God has bestowed His grace already. Think of
the countless hosts in Heaven: if thou wert introduced there to-day, thou wo
uldst find it as easy to tell the stars, or the sands of the sea, as to coun
t the multitudes that are before the throne even now. They have come from th
e East, and from the West, from the North, and from the South, and they are
sitting down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob in the Kingdom of
God; and beside those in Heaven, think of the saved ones on earth. Blessed b
e God, His elect on earth are to be counted by millions, I believe, and the
days are coming, brighter days than these, when there shall be multitudes up
on multitudes brought to know the Saviour, and to rejoice in Him. The Father
's love is not for a few only, but for an exceeding great company. "A great
multitude, which no man could number," will be found in Heaven. A man can re
ckon up to very high figures; set to work your Newtons, your mightiest calcu
lators, and they can count great numbers, but God and God alone can tell the
multitude of His redeemed. I believe there will be more in Heaven than in h
ell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everythi
ng, is to "have the pre-eminence," and I cannot conceive how He could have t
he pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Pa
radise.
But I truly doubt you looked this passage up anyway (indeed, I hope you didn
’t, for I would much rather believe you took someone else’s word for it an
d did bad research than to think you actually did look it up and simply igno
red the glaring contradiction of your position that you would have to see if
you actually did read it).
Likewise, you referred to John Piper and said, “In his zeal to defend Calvi
nism he must not only change the meaning of words, but maintain that the con
tradiction thereby created isn’t really a contradiction at all.” Dave, gi
ven your comments on Acts 13:48, and the fact that you change the meaning no
t of a word, but a phrase (one of the problems in your mishandling of that t
ext, documented below), I would be very, very slow to accuse others of “cha
nging” the meaning of words. You stand convicted on that point in a number
of instances. The difference is that you are saying “I don’t agree with
the Calvinist’s interpretation of what this word means” while we are sayin
g “Dave Hunt assigns a meaning completely contrary to the proper lexical me
anings in the particular passage under discussion, based upon grammatical an
d syntactical considerations that Mr. Hunt does not even attempt to address.
”
When we finally get to the text, do we find you offering exegesis? No.
No positive presentation based upon the text is given, as you will find in
Reformed works of scholarship. Instead, we are only told what the passage
isn’t saying, not what it is. You write,
Christ’s words are so simple and straightforward. “All that the Father gi
veth me shall come to me” does not say that “all that the Father draws sha
ll come to me.” Nor does “No man can come to me, except the Father ... dr
aw him” say that all that the Father draws come to Christ. And surely “I
will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40, 44, 54) refers to those who
actually come to Christ, not all who are drawn. It certainly would not incl
ude those who are drawn and then “draw back unto perdition” (Hebrews 10:39
). The Calvinist is reading into Christ’s words more than He actually says
. (pp. 332-333).
This is not exegesis, Dave. This is desperation. No positive interpretatio
n is offered here. We are not told how this fits with the immediate context
, how the grammar and syntax inform us of the topics, actions, and results r
ecounted in the text, etc. We are just given your assertions, nothing more.
Upon what basis are we to determine the truthfulness of your statements, s
ince you do not deign to offer us exegesis? But even here, you have complet
ely missed the point.
First no one says “giving” and “drawing” are synonymous. One is be
tween the Father and the Son, accomplished in eternity past (6:37, 39). The
other is an act of the Father that efficiently brings about the union of th
ose so given to their Savior. They are connected in that they have the same
object (the elect), but they are not synonymous in time (one took place in
eternity, the other takes place in time) or in nature. Hence, the first two
sentences you offer are simply not relevant. But the next sentence shows th
at you know there is an issue here that is very troubling to your position,
but you really do not know what to say about it. You say that “surely” th
ere is a disjunction between those who are drawn and those who are raised up
. To which I say, “Prove it.” It should be easily done, correct? You sa
id that “surely” the one who is raised is not coterminous with the one dra
wn, so you should have no problem proving, from the text, that we should int
roduce the disjunction you insist is there.
There is, of course, just one problem. The text defies your disjunctio
n. First, we note that Jesus is charged to raise up to eternal life all of
those who are given to Him (6:37-39). Being raised up on the last day is th
e same as receiving eternal life. They are used in parallel in this passage
. But, those who are given to the Son are raised up, and those who are draw
n are raised up. If the results are the same, obviously, the group is the s
ame. But there is more. In John 6:44, the key passage regarding “drawing,
” we read: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;
and I will raise him up on the last day.” This is a single sentence. In G
reek we have, helkuse auton, kagw anastesw auton en te eschate hemera. The
direct object of the action of the Father’s drawing is the first auton, “h
im.” A grand total of two words separate the first “him” from the second
appearance of the same term, “and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Now, you are telling us that this is a different “him,” a different group
of people. That in fact there are many, many who are drawn who will not be
raised up. You are telling us that the Father draws millions to Christ, but
they do not experience the last phrase of this single sentence. And upon w
hat basis? You don’t tell us. “Surely” you can do so! What is the basi
s, Mr. Hunt?
You later accuse me of “avoiding” Hebrews 10:38-39, which you briefly
cite here, as if it is somehow relevant. It is not. No one would be “avo
iding” the passage when exegeting John 6:44, since it is not relevant. You
assume that someone who would “shrink back to destruction” (NASB, the Gre
ek term referring originally to the lowering of sails, hence, a person who d
oes not continue on to a goal) was originally drawn, but the text nowhere ma
kes this assertion. Indeed, since John 6:44 makes the very connection you d
eny in saying that those who are drawn are raised up, none of those who woul
d “shrink back” were drawn by the Father to the Son in the first place. T
here is no exegetical connection outside of your own theology that says that
you can be drawn but not saved. Hebrews indicates people can be part of th
e external congregation but not be saved. To take your theological conclusi
ons and read them back into the text and then accuse the rest of us of “avo
iding” a connection you create thereby is, again, without scholarly merit.
Next you directly accuse me of eisegesis (p. 333). Well, if I have imp
roperly exegeted a passage, I am glad to receive correction. However, since
you offer no exegesis yourself, upon what basis can you hope to establish s
uch a charge? You write, “In examining White’s and other Calvinists’ met
hods of interpretation, one often finds eisegesis forcing the text to say wh
at it doesn’t say in order to fit their theories.” Strong words, Dave, fo
r someone who has chosen to remain unaware of the nuts and bolts of hermeneu
tics in the first place. When you cite from The Potter’s Freedom, you cite
only conclusions, never any of the exegetical argument that went into those
conclusions. You offer not a word of comment on any of the exegesis, inclu
ding discussion of lexical meanings, grammar, syntax, context, flow, etc. A
nd yet you begin by accusing me of eisegesis? Very strange indeed, Dave. I
nstead, you offer rhetoric. Note your own words:
Where in this passage does Jesus mention “total depravity” or “dead in si
n” or “incapacity” or “unable to please God” or anything about an “ele
ct.”? None of these Calvinist theories is there --- nor is any part of TUL
IP even implied.
Jesus did not mention total depravity in those specific words in this passag
e: He preached that man is unable to come to him. He said man lacks the cap
acity, the ability, to come to Him. That’s the result of sin, the result of
total depravity. “Dead in sin” is related to the very same thing: Jesus
said men are incapable of coming to Christ, and this is due to their deadnes
s in sin (Eph. 2:1-3). “Incapacity” is directly stated in John 6:44, “no
man is able” (Greek: ou dunatai). My reference to “unable to please God”
was, in the text you were citing, taken directly from Romans 8:7-8, not Joh
n 6, and yes, that phrase appears there:
because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not sub
ject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those w
ho are in the flesh cannot please God.
“Cannot please God” translates aresai ou dunantai, a direct parallel to Jo
hn 6:44. Next, God the Father gave a distinct group to the Son (6:39): Paul
calls them the elect, hence the term. Now, it strikes me as a desperate st
atement to say that none of these “Calvinist theories” are here nor that a
ny part of TULIP is implied in John 6:37-44. Any person simply reading the
passage can see the sovereignty of God, the depravity of man (the whole sect
ion explaining the unbelief of men), the fact that the giving of the Father
to the Son precedes and determines the coming of those given to Christ (turn
ing your eisegetical insertion of your false definition of foreknowledge ups
ide down, I note in passing) hence something called unconditional election,
etc. and etc. It sounds to me, Dave, like this is wishful thinking. You we
nt on to say,
Jesus does not say that the drawing must be limited to the elect or universa
lism would be the result, or that the drawing is either irresistible or unco
nditional.
Jesus did not utter those words, but He taught those concepts when we actual
ly attempt to engage the text on an exegetical level, Dave. Why would I say
that the drawing must be limited to the same ones who are given by the Fath
er to the Son? That’s simple: all who are given by the Father come to the
Son: only those who are drawn can come to the Son. Secondly, those who are
given are eventually raised to eternal life, and, despite your denial of it,
all who are drawn are likewise raised to eternal life. The simple flow of
the text proves the correctness of the conclusion offered. Only by atomizin
g the text can you avoid the clearly intended connection on the part of the
Lord Jesus. As to the drawing being irresistible, since it results in the r
aising to life of all those who are drawn, it would certainly not be resisti
ble. And, since only those who are given by the Father to the Son are drawn
, and that giving was, again, plainly unconditional (since it took place pri
or to the existence of those given, and determined their coming to Christ),
we see the concept of unconditional election as well.
Your argument comes apart at the seams when you try to engage the text’
s assertion that the one who is drawn is raised up. You write,
It is quite clear that Christ does not say that everyone who is drawn will a
ctually come to Him and be saved. That simply is not in the text. Neverthe
less, White is joined by a host of others who consider this to be one of the
premier “predestination passages” and a prooftext for Irresistible Grace.
..Schreiner and Ware assert with White that “the one who is drawn is also r
aised up on the last day.” Yet Christ clearly says it is those who come to
Him whom He will raise up at the last day. (p. 334)
Dave, the only possible reason why you could not see why I join such scholar
s as Tom Schreiner and Bruce Ware and R.C. Sproul and Charles Hodge and B.B.
Warfield and so many others is that you do not want to see it. You have be
en blinded by your traditions. It is not that the text is unclear. Your th
inking is what is unclear here, not the text, and I do not say that with any
malice toward you at all. Let’s look at the text again and see how your a
rgumentation is flawed.
First, you are making a positive assertion, but you refuse to state it
that way, hoping that by stating it negatively, you will not be forced to su
bstantiate your claim. You are saying that Jesus is teaching that there are
those who are drawn who are not raised up. You are saying the second “him
” in verse 44 refers to a different person than the first. Now, you offer
us no substantiation of your claim, anywhere, but you expect us to accept yo
ur claim, seemingly without any basis other than your own authority. I do n
ot argue as you do, Dave. When I say those who are drawn are the same ones
who are raised up, I provide exegetical basis. Here’s a summary:
1) There is no reason to insert a disjunction between the direct object of
helkuse and the direct object of anastesw. In fact, when we consider the sy
ntax of the passage, we note that while helkuse is found in a subjunctive cl
ause, the main tense comes from oudeis dunatai elthein, “no one is able to
come.” Note that the verb in the last clause is a future, “and I will rai
se him up.” The progression naturally flows into the last clause without i
nterruption. That is, there is nothing indicated in the verbal structure to
make kai disjunctive in any way (something you would need to find to be abl
e to substantiate your assertion). The natural reading is to see auton in b
oth clauses as synonymous in extent and meaning.
2) Those who come to Christ are those who were given to the Son by the Fath
er (John 6:37). Again, verbally, the giving precedes the coming. This is w
hy your entire explanation of the text is impossible: you turn it on its hea
d, insert the foreign concept of foreknowledge (and using it in an unbiblica
l fashion), and make the result of being given the grounds of being given!
We come to Christ as a result of the Father having given us to the Son. You
say we come to Christ, the Father foresees this (how the free actions of au
tonomous creatures can be foreseen in this fashion you do not explain, nor,
do I believe, can anyone really explain it outside of positing God’s sovere
ign decree in light of Ephesians 1:11), and on the basis of our foreseen fai
th, gives us to the Son. This completely reverses the order of Jesus’ own
words. Those who come are those who are given; those who are given are rais
ed up by Christ (6:38-39). Those who are drawn are raised up by Christ.
3) John 6:44 explains how it is that all those who are given by the Father
to the Son will, without fail, come to him. It does not make the giving and
the drawing the same action, as you errantly assume, but it does make it ce
rtain that all those who are given are, at the time decreed by God, drawn by
the Father to the Son.
4) Besides all these issues, there is another reason I have not yet present
ed for rejecting your disjunction. John 6:45 states,
"It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Every
one who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.”
This verse is not discussing something different, but expressing the same tr
uths in different words. The Lord did not all of a sudden insert some forei
gn idea here, but is now using hearing and teaching as another way of speaki
ng of the divine work of God whereby He draws His elect unto the Son. Who i
s Jesus referring to? All who are given by the Father to the Son, of course
, and all who are drawn by the Father to the Son. The ability to hear (or t
he lack of ability to do so) is a common theme in John’s gospel. Note the
same theme in John 8:43, 47:
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My
word. He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not
hear them, because you are not of God.
If we take your view, Dave, we would have to read those words differently, w
ould we not? “Why do you choose to not understand what I am saying? It is
because you choose not to hear My word. He who has chosen to be of God hea
rs the words of God, just as the one who has not; for this reason you do not
hear them, because you have not chosen to be of God.” That’s how you wou
ld have to rephrase such passages, is it not? Jesus spoke of an inability t
o hear (“cannot hear”) in John 8:43 just as He spoke of an inability to co
me in John 6:44. See the connection, Dave? John 6:45 says that those who h
ear and learn from the Father do what? Come. What do those who are given b
y the Father to the Son do? Come. John 6:45 parallels hearing and learning
with drawing. If being given, hearing, and learning, all result in one com
ing to Christ, and yet hearing and learning is parallel to being drawn, then
the only possible logical result is what? That all those who are drawn com
e to Christ and are raised up on the last day. So, graphically:
6:37 Action: Given by Father Result: All come to Christ
6:39 Action: Given by Father Result: None lost, all raised up
6:44 Action: Drawn by the Father Result: Come to Christ, raised up
6:45 Action: Hear from and Taught by Father: Result: Come to Christ
There is a strong, clear, irrefutable line that flows from 6:37 through 6:45
, Dave. You may try to deny its existence. You may tell your readers it is
not there. You may vociferously claim it contradicts other Scriptures (it
only contradicts your misunderstandings of other Scriptures). Indeed, you w
rote on page 336, “Moreover, to ‘draw’ someone in the ordinary sense of t
hat word doesn’t mean they will necessarily come all the way, nor is there
anything in either the Greek or the context to suggest, much less demand, th
at conclusion.” We have now seen that this statement is completely untrue.
But the fact is, the teaching is there. It is consistent throughout the pa
ssage. It is consistent with every grammatical, lexical, and syntactical an
alysis available. And it tells us that God the Father gives the elect to th
e Son, who infallibly and perfectly saves each and every one; it says that t
he Father draws those same undeserving sinners in His grace to the Son, and
the Son infallibly raises them up on the last day. These exegetical consider
ations are the death knell of your entire 20th chapter, Dave, a chapter in w
hich you accuse myself and others of eisegesis and misinterpretation.
I should note, Dave, that the rest of your attempted response to John 6
is dependent upon this very point, and since your explanation here has fail
ed, the rest of it, of course, is left without a foundation. I believe you
have a responsibility to your readers, since you have published on this topi
c, to speak the truth to them. If you cannot provide a solid, reasoned, tru
thful response to the information I have presented to you here, you should w
ithdraw your assertions. Indeed, you wrote on page 335,
The burden of proof is upon the Calvinist to show where the Bible clearly st
ates his doctrine; yet even in this passage which White calls “the clearest
exposition of Calvinism,” the theory is not plainly stated but must be rea
d into it or it could not be found there at all.
Yet, as I have now shown, the Bible does clearly state the doctrine, and you
r every attempt to cast doubt upon the clarity of the revelation has failed
upon the first examination of the text in a properly exegetical fashion. Yo
u allege we are reading into the text, yet, when we let the text speak for i
tself, it teaches these truths with great clarity. You are reading these tr
uths out of the text so as to substantiate your tradition. Yes, I know you
allege I am doing the same thing, but, as any formal debate between us would
show, one of us can provide an exegetically consistent foundation for his p
osition, one cannot.
Despite this, on page 335 you provide another paragraph that parallels
the rhetorical paragraphs you inserted prior to your brief attempt to deal w
ith John 6, that is, another rhetorical attempt to muddy the waters by repea
ting your basic assertions along the lines of “Calvinists are so wrong ther
e isn’t even the slightest bit of basis for anything they believe." This k
ind of argumentation is simply too easy to refute. I would never use such a
rgumentation against Roman Catholics, for example. I would never say, “The
re is absolutely nothing the Roman Catholic could ever point to so as to sub
stantiate their position.” That is begging simplistic refutation. Of cour
se the Roman Catholic can point to things in defense of their position: the
issue is, are their arguments consistent with biblical revelation, history,
and are they consistent with themselves? Here is your paragraph with respon
ses inserted:
Indisputably, the phrases themselves which are represented by the first four
letters in the acronym TULIP never appear in the entire Bible. [Neither doe
s the word Trinity, nor “pre-tribulation rapture” to use a term you freque
ntly utilize, but as anyone can see, the use of specific terms is not the is
sue: the phrase “free will” does not appear in the context of man’s alleg
ed ability to freely choose or reject Christ, either. The issue is, does th
e Bible teach the concept that is described by phrases like Total Depravity,
Unconditional Election, etc.] That fact should speak volumes. [It doesn’t
] Where is it stated in plain words that men are by nature incapable of bel
ieving the gospel or of seeking God? [That would be John 6:44, Romans 8:7-8,
and Romans 3:10-11, just to name a few representative samples] Where does
it say in clear language that men are chosen unconditionally to salvation [E
phesians 1:3-11, Romans 8:28-31, etc.], or that grace is irresistible [every
passage that describes the work of salvation as a divinely powerful and rad
ical change, such as the removal of the heart of stone and the giving of a h
eart of flesh (Eze. 36:26) or the giving of life to the dry bones (Eze. 37)
and every passage that says that we are saved by grace alone (Eph. 1:6) teac
h the divine power of saving grace, which is all irresistible grace is about
] or that Christ died only for a select few? [We do not believe it is a few,
we believe it was for all the elect, which no man can number, and the plain
words would be such passages as Matthew 1:21, Romans 8:31-34, Eph. 5:25, et
c.] Where does it say explicitly that one must be sovereignly regenerated w
ithout any understanding or faith before one can understand and believe the
gospel? [This is the constant misrepresentation of the Reformed position tha
t is found throughout your work. God uses the proclamation of the gospel as
the means of bringing the knowledge of Christ to His elect. The fact that
regeneration precedes saving faith is found in numerous passages, such as Jo
hn 1:12-13, 1 John 5:1, etc., and is likewise substantiated by the descripti
on of faith as a gift given by God, Phil. 1:29] The Calvinist cannot produc
e for any part of TULIP a clear, unambiguous statement from any part of Scri
pture! [That is wishful thinking, Dave, and has been refuted above] Calvin
ism must therefore be imposed upon certain texts because it cannot be derive
d from any. [An assertion that any person who has taken the time to read bot
h sides knows is far beyond any kind of rational basis]
You then echoed the constant theme of our radio exchange from August of 2000
when you write, “Where does the Scripture clearly say that God desires bil
lions to perish and that it is His good pleasure and even to His glory to wi
thhold from them the requisite irresistible grace?” Though I know you have
not listened to any of the men of God who have spoken to you over the cours
e of the writing of your book, it is still necessary to speak words of truth
again. Your objection is in error. God desires the salvation of His elect
. Desire is a positive term. God’s judgment against sin is not a matter o
f desire, it is a matter of law. God’s law demands punishment of sin. Any
person outside of Christ is under God’s wrath. Wrath is negative, desire
is positive. God does not “desire” that billions perish. You assume that
if something is a part of God’s sovereign decree that it means it is a pos
itive desire on God’s part. Such is not the case. In both of our beliefs
God punishes sin. In both of our beliefs God knew this would be the outcome
of His act of creating. In mine, God determines to make His wrath and powe
r and holiness known as a means of contrast to His grace and mercy. In your
belief, for some reason, you do not want there to be an eternal purpose in
God’s creation, but instead, God creates and yet man then determines the ul
timate outcome, at least in reference to the salvation of individuals. Then
you use a phrase that speaks loudly to the error of your view of grace, tha
t being, “to withhold from them the requisite irresistible grace.” Dave,
the terms “requisite” and “grace” are not to appear in the same phrase.
Grace can never be “requisite.” As I told you in August of 2000, if the
governor of a state, who is given the authority to pardon criminals who sit
upon death row, pardons one of a hundred such justly condemned criminals, yo
u have no basis upon which to demand that the governor is required to extend
the same pardoning grace to the other ninety-nine justly condemned criminal
s. Grace and mercy cannot be demanded. No person could come to the governo
r after the execution of one of those justly condemned criminals and say, “
You are to blame! You withheld the requisite pardon of that man!” No, the
governor was under no compulsion to pardon anyone. The criminal was justly
punished.
On page 338 you write,
And even some who are chosen are not willing to fulfill their calling but be
tray the One whom they claimed was their Lord. Jesus said, “Have not I cho
sen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot...”
(John 6:70-71).
If it is your purpose here to attempt to parallel the Lord’s choosing of Ju
das with election unto salvation, you have again made a basic error. Judas
was chosen to be one of the twelve. He was not chosen to salvation. In fac
t, he is called the Son of Perdition, and was marked out for his role by the
decree of God (Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21; John 17:12)! That there are thos
e who pretend to faith in Christ and then deny that pretension there is no d
oubt. That these are the ones drawn by the Father to the Son is contradicte
d by all that has already been noted above.
Interestingly, under the subtitle “Except the Father Draw Him: What Do
es That Mean?” you note that “No one naturally seeks the Lord; we all seek
our own selfish desires, and no one can come to Christ except the Father dr
aw him. But the Holy Spirit is in the world to convict all of their sin and
need (John 16:8-11), the gospel is being preached, the Father is drawing ev
eryone (even through the witness of creation and conscience).” Now let me
ask, if you are correct, then why do you embrace Christ, and your moral Budd
hist neighbor across the street does not? Are you smarter than he is? More
spiritually sensitive? Better, in any way? What makes you to differ? Is
the Holy Spirit working just as hard on him as He did on you? If so, why do
you believe, and he does not? No matter how hard you try, you can’t avoid
coming to the conclusion that, in a “free will” system of salvation, thos
e who believe do so because there is something different about them. If the
Spirit is bringing equal conviction to bear upon each individual, the only
deciding factor, given equality in everything else, is something in the pers
on himself. I believe the only possible difference between the redeemed in
heaven and the guilty, condemned, punished sinner in hell is a five-letter w
ord, Dave. It’s called “grace.” You continued,
White claims that “draw” indicates a total incapacity on man’s part. He
insists that Christ is not saying that His Father draws men so they may come
to Him while still require their willing participation. Instead, he assert
s that “draw” means man can’t cooperate in any way, but is irresistibly d
rawn beyond his power either to agree or disagree. That’s not being drawn,
but propelled against one’s will. (p. 339)
Unfortunately, you do not inform us where you are quoting from. Assuming yo
u are dealing with chapter seven, pages 159 and following, you will note tha
t in that section I insisted, strongly, that the Greek phrase ou dunatai, tr
anslated “is not able,” is the source of “total inability” in John 6:44.
It is a misreading of my text to say that I connected drawing with inabili
ty as to its source. The drawing is necessary because of the inability expr
essed in ou dunatai. You have simply misread the text, and, I note, I cover
ed this material in our radio discussion as well.
At this point, Dave, we encounter one of the worst examples of horrific
argumentation, including ad-hominem, misrepresentation, and simply gut-wren
ching illogic, in all of your book. You wrote, under the ironic subtitle of
“Eisegetical Illusion,”
To support his assertions, White quotes Calvin, to whom he refers with great
admiration. Apparently, as far as White is concerned, Calvin’s tyrannical
rule of Geneva where he exhibited much pride, impatience and lack of love a
nd sympathy toward those who dared to disagree with him, even resorting to t
orture in order to persuade, gives no cause for suspecting Calvin’s underst
anding of and fidelity to Scripture.
This kind of rhetoric is simply reprehensible. You should apologize to ever
y person who has plunked down the money to buy this book for this kind of st
atement. First, if you were the careful reader you claim to be, you would kn
ow that my presentation of John 6:44 is based upon the exegesis of the Greek
text, not quotes from John Calvin. You would have read, or at least looked
at, my book, Drawn by the Father, which is on nothing other than this passa
ge. Since you have shown yourself unwilling, and I truly believe, unable, t
o respond to the exegetical presentation, you choose to appeal to those in y
our audience who are susceptible to emotionalism. This is an obvious attemp
t to poison the well through the use of wild rhetoric combined with simple m
isrepresentation.
Secondly, this kind of anti-Calvin rhetoric is nigh unto “screeching.”
To anyone even slightly familiar with sound historical studies on the life
of John Calvin, the context in which he lived, and his work, the words you
have put into print put you on the same level as Jimmy Swaggart, and grossly
belie the ascription to you of the term “scholar” on the back of your boo
k. Your entire presentation on Calvin is so lacking in the first element of
fairness (let alone charity) that it truly leaves one breathless. However,
it is so overboard, so without the first bit of honesty in its use of sourc
es, that it is truly self-destructive. Those who are not interested in the
truth will not take a second look and check your arguments and sources. But
those who are will find your presentation so strident that they will likely
turn to other sources for further information. And if they pick up a fair,
accurate, scholarly work on Calvin’s life, such as John T. McNeill’s The
History and Character of Calvinism (Oxford, 1967), they will find a contrast
that will, I trust, lead them to a proper and fair evaluation of John Calvi
n, the man. They will learn about all the things you unfairly and malicious
ly left out. And while Calvin really doesn’t care what you say about him t
oday, the one who will suffer loss, in terms of simple credibility, will be
you.
You continue your tirade against Calvin, seemingly thinking, for some r
eason, that this is relevant to the issue at hand, the exegesis of John 6.
The fact that you would insert this material here speaks volumes to your met
hodology, Dave. It is obvious you are not pursuing the truth here, but are
seeking to create in the mind of your reader such a level of prejudice as to
guarantee their acceptance of your conclusions without any fair considerati
on of the facts at hand. Such is, as I noted above, reprehensible on any le
vel. Christian authors are to be men of truth, and are to eschew such disho
nest methodologies.
Between this attack upon Calvin and the continuation of it on page 341
and following, you insert a single paragraph, just one, that deals with some
thing relevant to the passage. But this paragraph, sandwiched in between bl
asts aimed toward Geneva, hardly begins to make sense. You recognize that c
oming to Christ is synonymous with believing in him. Quite true. But then
you show the continued confusion that I identified on KPXQ two years ago. Y
ou insist that somehow this contradicts the biblical fact that faith is the
gift of God and is only possible in the spiritually living person. But to b
e honest, your argument makes no sense to me at all, and hence defies a rati
onal refutation. It is possible that since it dwells between paragraphs of
unrestrained slander of John Calvin it was not really meant to make sense an
yway. It is hard to say.
The organization of chapter 20 defies summary. After blasting away at
Calvin for a while, you go back to the topic of John 6, but you start from t
he beginning yet again. Most of the errors you made before are repeated her
e, but there are some new twists. You focused upon my assertion that there
is no non-Reformed exegesis of the text of John 6 “available” that is cons
istent. Your writing only serves to substantiate my assertion, that is for
certain! But in the process you once again demonstrate that it is not wise
to on the one hand say, “I choose not to prepare myself to do scholarly exe
gesis through the study of the languages and means by which to fairly engage
the task” and “I choose to engage a topic that requires intensive work in
the field of scholarly exegesis.” Instead, you turn to John 6:65, give com
pletely irrelevant information about didwmi, and insist that what is being s
aid is that the Father gives men a chance to believe. You write,
There is no question that the Calvinist interpretation of John 6:37-45 is co
ntrary to the entire tenor of Scripture. Let us examine it, too, in this sp
ecific context. In John 6:65, Jesus uses slightly different language in say
ing the same thing: “no man can come unto me, except it were given [Greek,
didomi] unto him of my Father.” Note that it is not a giving of the sinner
to the Son, but a giving to the sinner (given him), making it possible for
him to come to Christ. (pp. 343-344).
You have leapt from exegesis to eisegesis in your last comment. See, Dave,
it is just here that again you demonstrate the essential correctness of the
words I wrote to you before this book ever came out. While you provided an
entire page of uses of didwmi you failed to actually deal with the word as i
t appears in John 6:65. The term is used often in the Greek New Testament,
and noting uses in other contexts that are grammatically, contextually, and
syntactically unrelated is simply bluster. It has no meaning in exegesis un
less you can explain its direct relevance to the text at hand, and this you
do not even attempt. Yet, without even touching upon the actual grammar of
John 6:65, you quote irrelevant uses of the term and conclude,
Surely all of the usages (and others like them) give us ample reason for the
very non-Reformed exegesis which White says is not “available.” The Fath
er draws the lost to Christ by giving (didomi) to them the opportunity to be
lieve. The giving of those who believe to the Son is of another nature. An
d those who are drawn by the Father must, in response to the Father’s drawi
ng, “see” Him with the eyes of faith and believe on Him to be saved. The
giving of the Father to the Son is something else - a special blessing for t
hose who believe. (pp. 344-345).
That is all very nice, but, of course, it has nothing to do with the text of
John 6:65. That is surely what you believe, but you have failed, completel
y, to connect this to the text in a meaningful fashion. Allow me to point o
ut the problems with your assertions.
1) The “uses” you offered are irrelevant to John 6:65. didwmi is used in
a wide variety of ways, but you forgot a basic, simple duty of the exegete:
you did not demonstrate that any of your examples were grammatically parall
el to or relevant to John 6:65.
2) You say the Father draws the lost to Christ by giving them the opportuni
ty to believe. Nowhere in John 6 do we find the phrase “opportunity to bel
ieve.” There is no “opportunity to believe” in John 6:65.
3) The giving of a specific people to the Son by the Father, documented in
John 6:37-39, is in fact the same concept enunciated in John 6:65. And you
have failed to deal with the fact that it is the giving of the Father to the
Son that results in the coming of any person to Christ (which contradicts y
our “foreknowledge” argument presented elsewhere).
4) Just as you err in your comments on Acts 13:48 by ignoring the periphras
tic construction found there, you misinterpret a similar phrase here. It is
very common for those who do not read the original tongues to focus upon si
ngle words, as you did. But words are often used in phrases that change the
ir meaning and usage. That is the case here. The Greek term didwmi is used
along with a form of the verb eimi. In this case, we have a perfect partic
ipial form of didwmi joined with a present (subjunctive) form of eimi. In G
reek grammar, when you have a present form of eimi with a perfect participle
, the resulting tense for the periphrastic construction is a perfect (see Wi
lliam Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 277 for a summary that will be he
lpful in analyzing your statements on Acts 13:48 as well). This is why the
NASB renders the phrase “it has been granted.” The NIV goes a bit farther
, “unless the Father has enabled him.” In both cases, the idiomatic flavo
r of the term (the current koine standard Greek lexicon, A Greek-English Lex
icon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition,
edited by Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich ---mercifully abbreviated as BD
AG --- gives no less than seventeen categories of uses of the term, many of
them in conjunction with other terms in idiomatic phrases) is brought out.
You seek to say that the text actually says that no one can come to Christ u
nless God the Father gives them an opportunity to believe. You make the “g
iving” something that is on-going, a present-tense concept, and you make th
e object of what is given a “chance” to believe. But the text contradicts
you in two major ways: a) the periphrastic tense meaning is perfect, not p
resent, matching the perfect tense of “given” at John 6:39, and b) the obj
ect of what is “given” is provided by the text. The periphrastic is in th
e subjunctive because if follows ean me, “unless.” The “unless” points
us back to the preceding context, specifically, “no one is able to come to
me.” It is the coming to Christ that is given by the Father, not a “chanc
e to believe.” This is, in fact, the very same truth enunciated in 6:37-39
all who are so given to Him (6:39), and no man is able to come to Him unless
it has been given/granted Him by the Father (making the same connection I h
ave defended above: that those who are given are then drawn).
The truth is, Dave, John 6:65 is simply a summary statement of what we
saw in John 6:37-45. Your comments on it miss the mark because you do not e
ngage in an exegetical study of the text. And as long as men and women take
the text seriously and engage in the deep and fair study of its structure a
nd meaning, they will come to see the great truth of God’s sovereign grace.
This letter is getting rather long, and I still have some other importa
nt points to address, so I will conclude the examination of the errors in ch
apter 20 with this fascinating assertion on your part:
Christ’s words, “No man can come to me except the Father draw him,” are n
ot the same as White’s interpretive “No man is able to come to me.” Chri
st is not denying either the necessity or capability on man’s part of activ
e acquiescence and faith. He is actually saying, “Men can come to me if th
e Father draws them --- i.e., if given them of the Father. (p. 346).
First, you call it “interpretive” to render ou dunatai as “not able”? I
would very much like to see you defend that assertion upon some kind of act
ual lexical basis, Dave. We both know you could not even begin to defend su
ch a statement. But what is even more troubling is the fact that you then t
urn John 6:44 on its head, insisting that Jesus is not saying “No man is ab
le” but “every man is able.” See, since you believe God draws all, then
you are, in fact, teaching and preaching the exact opposite of the Lord in J
ohn 6:44. Your every attempt to refute this passage has failed, completely.
I do hope you will listen to this refutation and retract your errant teach
ing on this subject.
John 3:16 Freed From Tradition
Dave, I think we can agree on the fact that you believe your interpreta
tion of John 3:16 is the key to the entire controversy. Note I said your in
terpretation. I do not get the idea that you realize that your view is not
the only possible way of reading the words of the Lord Jesus, nor, to be hon
est, do I get the feeling that you have engaged in the task of exegeting eve
n John 3:16. It is your tradition to interpret it in a particular fashion.
That tradition includes two very important elements: 1) the idea that “wor
ld” means every single individual person, so that God loves each person equ
ally (resulting in a denial of any particularity in God’s love, even in His
redemptive love), and 2) that the term “whosoever” includes within its me
aning a denial of particularity or election. Your assumption of these ideas
underlies pretty much the entirety of your book.
Before I chose to write you this open letter, I began an article on Joh
n 3:16 and Acts 13:48. I only completed the first section of the exegesis o
f John 3:16, and was about to address your statements about my allegedly “t
wisting” the passage, so I will insert what I wrote here, and pick up with
the letter itself on the other side...
Sometimes the passages we know best we know least. That is, when we he
ar a passage repeated in a particular context over and over and over again,
we tend to lose sight of its real meaning in its original setting. This is
surely the case with John 3:16, for it is one of the most commonly cited pas
sages in evangelical preaching. And yet, how often is it actually subjected
to exegesis? Hardly ever. Its meaning is assumed rather than confirmed.
I would like to offer a brief exegesis of the passage and a confirming cross
-reference to a parallel passage in John’s first epistle.
Exegesis
We are uncertain just where in this passage the words of the Lord Jesus
end, and John’s begin. Opinions differ. But as John did not believe it ne
cessary to indicate any break, we do not need to be concerned about it. In
either case the words flow naturally from the discussion Jesus begins with N
icodemus concerning what it means to be born again, or from above. But as e
very text without a context is merely a pretext, note the preceding verses:
14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son o
f Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal li
fe.
Jesus harkens back to the incident in the wilderness (Numbers 21:5ff) where
the Lord provided a means of healing to the people of Israel. It goes witho
ut saying that the serpent was 1) not something the people would have chosen
(given that their affliction was being brought on through serpents); 2) onl
y a means of deliverance for a limited population (i.e., the Jews, not for a
ny outside that community); and 3) was limited in its efficaciousness to tho
se who a) were bitten, b) knew it and recognized it, and c) in faith looked
upon the means God had provided for healing. This historical event in the h
istory of Israel (one that would be well known to Nicodemus) is made the typ
e that points, if only as a shadow, to the greater fulfillment in Jesus Chri
st. The Son of Man was lifted up (on the cross) as God’s means of redempti
on. Faith is expressed by looking in obedience on the God-given means of sa
lvation.
The phrase “whoever believes” in verse 15 is hina pas ho pisteuwn, which i
s directly parallel to the same phrase in verse 16 [in fact, the parallel of
the first part of the phrase led, in later manuscripts, and in fact in the
Majority Text type, to the harmonization of verse 15 with 16, resulting in t
he expansion of the original. The NASB, however, reflects the more accurate
textual reading, “so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life”
or “so that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life.”]. The Engli
sh term “whoever” is meant to communicate “all without distinction in a p
articular group,” specifically, “those who believe.” Pas means “all” a
nd ho pisteuwn is “the one(s) believing,” hence, “every one believing,”
leading to “whoever believes.” It should be remembered that there is no s
pecific word for “whoever” in the Greek text: this comes from the joining
of “all” with “the one believing,” i.e., “every one believing.” The p
oint is that all the ones believing have eternal life. There is no such thi
ng as a believing person who will not receive the promised benefit, hence, “
whosoever.” This is a common form in John’s writings. For example, in hi
s first epistle he uses it often. Just a few examples:
If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices
(Greek: pas ho poiwn) righteousness is born of Him. (1 John 2:29)
One could translate the above phrase as “whoever” or “whosoever practices
righteousness.” Likewise,
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who lov
es (Greek: pas ho agapwn) is born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)
Likewise one could use “whoever” here as in “”whoever loves is born of G
od,” etc. And a final relevant example,
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves
the Father loves the child born of Him. (1 John 5:1)
Here, because the phrase begins the sentence, it is normally rendered by “w
hoever,” since “everyone” does not “flow” as well. So this passage cou
ld be rendered “Everyone who is believing.” In each case we see the point
being made: the construction pas + articular present nominative singular pa
rticiple means “all the ones, in particular, doing the action of the partic
iple, i.e., whoever is doing the action of the participle.” What we can de
termine without question is that the phrase does not in any way introduce so
me kind of denial of particularlity to the action. That is, the action of t
he participle defines the group that is acting. The “whoever” does not ex
pand the horizon of the action beyond the limitation of the classification i
ntroduced by the participle. This will become important in examining the ne
xt section of verses.
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that who
ever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God d
id not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world mi
ght be saved through Him. 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who
does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the
name of the only begotten Son of God.
Verse 16 begins with the assertion that God’s love is the basis of His rede
mptive work in Jesus Christ. God’s love for the world comes to expression
in the sending of His unique Son into the world, and in the provision of ete
rnal life for a specific and limited group. The same delineation and partic
ularity that is found in the last phrase of v. 15 is repeated here.
For a discussion of the meaning of only-begotten Son, or much better, u
nique Son, see The Forgotten Trinity, pp. 201-203.
The text’s meaning is transparent, though again, the challenge is hear
ing the text outside of pre-existing traditions. “So” is best understood
as “in this manner” or “to this extent” rather than the common “sooooo
much.” His love is shown, illustrated, or revealed in His giving of His So
n. The Incarnation is an act of grace, but that Incarnation is never seen s
eparately from the purpose of Christ in coming into the world, specifically,
providing redemption through faith in Him. Hence, the love of God is demon
strated in the giving of Christ so as to bring about the eternal life of bel
ievers.
The Meaning and Extent of kosmos
The great controversy that rages around the term “world” is wholly un
necessary. The wide range of uses of kosmos (world) in the Johannine corpus
is well known. John 3:16 does not define the extent of kosmos. However, a
few things are certain: it is not the “world” that Jesus says He does not
pray for in John 17:9, a “world” that is differentiated from those the Fa
ther has given Him: “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the w
orld, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours.” It is not
the “world” that is arrayed as an enemy against God’s will and truth, eit
her, as seen in 1 John 2:15: “Do not love the world nor the things in the w
orld. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” Ob
viously, the “world” we are not to love in 1 John 2:15 is not the world Go
d showed His love toward by sending His unique Son. The most that can be sa
id by means of exegesis (rather than by insertion via tradition) is that the
world is shown love through the giving of the Son so that a specific, parti
cular people receive eternal life through faith in Him. Since we know that
not all are saved by faith in Christ, it is utterly unwarranted to read into
kosmos some universal view of humanity: how is God’s love shown for one wh
o experiences eternal punishment by the provision of salvation for someone e
lse? Surely, then, this is a general use of kosmos, with more specific uses
of the term coming in the following verses. That is, the common meaning of
world that would have suggested itself to the original readers (Jew and Gen
tile), and this is born out by the parallel passage in 1 John 4, as we will
see below.
Whoever Believes
See comments above regarding the meaning of pas ho pisteuwn. There is
no phrase or term here that indicates a universal ability to believe as is s
o often assumed by those reading this passage. The present tense of the par
ticiple should be emphasized, however. John’s use of the present tense “b
elieve” is very significant, especially in light of his use of the aorist t
o refer to false believers. The ones who receive eternal life are not those
who believe once, but those who have an on-going faith. This is his common
usage in the key soteriological passages (John 3, 6, 10). When one examine
s Christ’s teaching concerning who it is that truly believes in this fashio
n we discover that it is those who are given to Him by the Father (John 6:37
-39) who come to Him and who believe in Him in saving fashion.
Verse 18 continues the point by insisting that the one believing in Chr
ist is not condemned/judged (Greek: krinetai). However, the one not believi
ng has been judged already because he has not believed in the name of Christ
(both “has been judged” and “has not believed” are perfect tense, indic
ating a completed action that is not awaiting a future fulfillment). Just a
s Paul teaches that the wrath of God is continually being revealed against c
hildren of wrath, John tells us that the wrath of God abides upon those who
do not obey the Son (John 3:36).
Salvation, Not Judgment
Verse 17 expands upon the reason why God sent the Son into the world.
The primary purpose was not for condemnation. Given the fact that Jesus spe
aks often of His role as judge and His coming as something that brings judgm
ent (John 3:19, 5:22, and 9:39), it would be best to render the term “conde
mnation” in this context. English usage and tradition again conspire to ro
b the due force of the adversative hina clause: that is, many see “but that
the world might be saved” as some kind of weak affirmation, when in fact t
he idea is, “God did not send the Son for purpose X, but instead, to fulfil
l purpose Y.” The hina clause expresses God’s purpose in the sending of t
he Son. It does not contain some kind of sense that “God did this which mi
ght result in that, if this happens....” While the subjunctive can be used
in conditional sentences, it is also used in purpose/result clauses without
the insertion of the idea of doubt or hesitant affirmation. The word “migh
t” then is not to be read “might as in maybe, hopefully, only if other thi
ngs happen” but “might” as in “I turned on the printer so that I might u
se it to print out this letter.” Purpose, not lack of certainty.
Of course, this immediately raises another theological question, howeve
r. Will God save the world through Christ? If one has inserted the concept
of “universal individualism” into “world” in verse 16, and then insists
(against John’s regular usage) that the same meaning be carried throughout
a passage, such would raise real problems. However, there is no need to do
this. When we see the world as the entirety of the kinds of men (Jew and G
entile, or as John expresses it in Revelation 5:9, every “tribe, tongue, pe
ople and nation” = world) the passage makes perfect sense. God’s love is
demonstrated toward Jew and Gentile in providing a single means of salvation
for both (Paul’s main point in Romans 3-4), so too it is that He will acco
mplish that purpose in the sending of the Son. He will save “the world,”
that is, Jews and Gentiles.
A Parallel Passage
1 John 4:7-10 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; an
d everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not l
ove does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manif
ested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that
we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but t
hat He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
This passage provides us with a tremendous commentary, from John himself, on
the passage we have just examined from his Gospel. The repetition of key p
hrases in the same contexts show us how closely related the two passages are
. Both passages speak of God’s love; both speak of God’s sending of His S
on and how this is a manifestation of God’s love; both speak of life and th
e forgiveness of sin, often using the very same words John used to record Jo
hn 3:16ff. So how did the Apostle John understand those words? Here we are
given that insight.
The context of this passage is love among believers. Love comes from G
od, and it is natural for the one who has been born of God to love. The red
eemed person loves because God is love, and those who know God seek to be li
ke Him. Those who do not walk in love are betraying any claim they may make
to know Him. This brings us to the key verses, 9-10.
The fact that verse nine is meant to be a restatement of John 3:16 can
be seen by placing them in parallel to one another:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world
1 John 4:9 By this the love of God was manifested in us
John 3:16 that He gave His only begotten Son
1 John 4:9 that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world
John 3:16 that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal
life
1 John 4:9 so that we might live through Him
Once we see the clear connection, and recognize the background of John’s wo
rds, we can use 1 John 4:9 to shed light upon some of the key issues regardi
ng the proper interpretation of John 3:16ff. For example, we concluded abov
e that “world” meant the world of humanity, i.e., Jew and Gentile taken in
kind and not in universal particularity (each and every person). This is c
onfirmed by John’s rephrasing here, “By this the love of God was manifeste
d to us.” The “us” in this immediate context is identified in verse 7, “
Beloved, let us love one another,” i.e., the Christian fellowship, which is
made up of Jews and Gentiles. Further, the issue of the intention of God i
n sending the Son is further illuminated by noting the teaching of 1 John as
well. That is, John 3:17 says it was the Father’s intention to save the w
orld through Christ. This we know Christ accomplished (Revelation 5:9-10) b
y saving men from every tribe, tongue, people and nation (this comprising th
e same group seen in John 6:37 who are given by the Father to the Son). 1 J
ohn 4:10 summarizes the entire work of God by saying that God’s love is sho
wn in His sending Christ as the propitiation for our sins. This is parallel
ed here with verse 9, “God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so
that we might live through Him.” This helps to explain the oft-cited words
of 1 John 2:2. The “whole world” of 1 John 2:2 would carry the same mean
ing we have already seen: the whole world of Jew and Gentile. The thrust of
1 John 2:2 is that there are more who will experience the benefit of Christ
’s propitiatory death than just the current Christian communion. The messa
ge continues to move out into the world, and as it does so, God draws His el
ect unto Himself, those that He joined to Jesus Christ so that His death is
their death, His resurrection their resurrection. But in none of these pass
ages do we find any reference to a work of Christ that is non-specific and u
niversal with reference to individuals, let alone one that is not perfectly
accomplished. God’s manifestation of His love does not fail.
Back to You, Dave....
Now as you can see, Dave, I addressed many of your assertions in passin
g in exegeting this passage. Indeed, you often used the argument in your bo
ok, in different forms but always with the same conclusion, “White (or othe
r Calvinist author) ignored/avoided passage X, which shows that they know it
contradicts their position, but are afraid to admit it.” You said that I
did not “even attempt to deal with the unequivocal statement in John 3:17”
(p. 271). Well, as you can see above, I have no problems with John 3:17, a
nd actually find it quite confirmatory of the Reformed exegesis of the passa
ge. But just because I do not deal with a passage of Scripture that you see
as relevant does not mean I am “avoiding” it. Logically, there are two p
ossibilities: 1) I am ignorant of its relevance (no one knows all there is t
o know), which would not be “avoidance,” or 2) you are in error in thinkin
g that your interpretation of said passage is relevant. In this case, I rej
ect your interpretation of John 3:17, hence, I was not “avoiding” anything
at all.
You wrote on page 270,
But White, realizing that such an admission does away with Limited Atonement
, manages a desperate end run around John 3:16. He suggests that sound exeg
esis requires “that whosoever believeth on him should not perish” actually
means “in order that everyone believing in him should not perish....” Th
at slight twist allows White to suggest that Calvinism’s elect alone believ
e and thus Christ died only for them.
First, it is again improper of you to call an exegetically sound, reasoned e
xplanation of the Greek text (something you did not offer in your own book)
a “desperate end run” nor to call it a “slight twist.” I am not despera
te, Dave. I can quote my opponents correctly, for example, and I don’t hav
e to turn Arminius into a monster just to disagree with his theological conc
lusions. When I offer a comment on the meaning of a passage, I provide exege
tical backing for my statement, as I did above. I would challenge you to pr
ovide a scholarly response to the above exegesis, one that does not depend u
pon misreading non-koine lexicons (as you did in regards to tassw at Acts 13
tire sections of anti-Calvinist rhetoric (as you did in chapter 20, document
ed above).
Next, you seemed highly confused regarding the meaning of the term kosm
os on page 271. Are you asserting it always has the same meaning, especiall
y in John? Surely you know differently. I would suggest that the only reas
on you choose to mock the identification of world in a way that is outside o
f your tradition is that your understanding of John 3:16 is so dependent upo
n that particular understanding that you cannot possibly allow for it to be
otherwise. You have not derived the meaning of “world” or “whosoever” y
ou insist upon from the text, but from your tradition, which has become for
you equal in authority to the actual text of Scripture.
Acts 13:48
Well, this letter is more of a small book now, so I must hurry to the
last topic I wished to address at this point. I will leave it to others to
expand upon the many, many problems/errors/self-contradictions in your work,
Dave. For now, I wish to close with the first passage I looked up in the s
olo copy of your work that lay upon your table at the PFO Conference in Apri
l: Acts 13:48, which is found on pp. 210-211. The text, as it is found in t
he NASB, reads,
When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word o
f the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
Rather than quoting the entirety of the section, let me summarize your argum
ent in the following points:
1) “ordained” is questionable reading
2) Many Greek scholars call it a wrong translation.
3) In none of the other uses in the NT does it refer to a decree from God
4) The Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon does not give “ordain” or “foreor
dain” as a meaning of the term.
5) I Corinthians 16:15 in the KJV renders tassw as “addicted.”
6) “Many Greek experts” suggest the translation “disposed themselves to
believe.”
7) Several authorities identify the KJV’s “wrong” rendering to the “cor
rupt” Latin Vulgate.
8) Dean Alford rendered it “disposed to eternal life believed.”
9) The Expositor’s Greek Testament says this is not about a divine decree.
10) A.T. Robertson said this passage does not decide the debate.
11) “Context” supports the rendering “disposed” rather than “ordained.
”
The person wishing to see if this is a fair summary may consult the referenc
ed pages. First, I note that you did not deal with the exegesis I offered i
n The Potter’s Freedom outside of simply mentioning the fact that I gave a
list of the modern translations that render the passage “ordain” rather th
an any other translation. But you did not touch on the periphrastic constru
ction that I explained on pages 188-189, nor did you mention the resultant t
ense meaning. But I shall bring this out as I respond to each point:
1) You say “ordained” is a questionable reading. In fact, you eventually
say it is “wrong,” not just questionable. I think this should be well un
derstood: the same man who said in a public address in my own hearing “I d
o not read Greek. It might as well be Chinese” has been able to determine
that the vast majority of English translations have been duped, seemingly by
the Latin Vulgate (point #7). When I say vast majority, I truly mean it.
Let’s look at a list:
KJV: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
NASB: and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed
NIV: and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
ASV: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
ESV: and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
ISV: Meanwhile, all who had been destined to eternal life believed.
NET: and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed.
NAB: All who were destined for eternal life came to believe.
NKJV: And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
NLT: and all who were appointed to eternal life became believers.
NRSV: and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers.
GNB: and those who had been chosen for eternal life became believers
Jerus.: all who were destined for eternal life became believers.
Now, that’s a pretty impressive list. From the KJV to the ESV, the publish
ed translations of the English Bible done by teams of translators render the
phrase with remarkable consistency. Are we to believe that they are all ju
st slavishly following the “corrupt” Latin Vulgate? Or did Jerome know so
mething, too?
I looked high and low for a published translation done by a team of sch
olars that renders the passage “disposed to eternal life.” I found “disp
osed” in a footnote in the Living Bible. You cited Alford’s commentary.
But that was it. Then, one day, I found a published English Bible that read
s exactly as you suggest, Dave. It was translated by a team alright, but th
ey were not a team of scholars. You see, the only published English transla
tion I have found that agrees with the “many” Greek scholars you claim are
on your side is the following:
NWT: and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became be
lievers
Yes, Dave, you have adopted the reading of the New World Translation of Jeho
vah’s Witnesses. The NWT! You reject the entirety of the published transl
ations noted above, including the King James Version, and adopt the NWT’s r
eading! Amazing, utterly amazing, don’t you think? It would be humorous i
f it were not so serious: Dave Hunt identifying the work of all of Evangelic
alism’s leading Bible translators as an error, and adopting instead the rea
ding of the NWT.
2) You do not list these “scholars.” You did list some commentators who
do not believe the verse speaks to eternal predestination (that is hardly su
rprising), but you do not provide us with the names of these scholars. Nor
can you
do so. Greek scholars happen to know that this periphrastic construction h
as a pluperfect tense meaning. And that means the action of the constructio
n preceded the act of believing. When you combine this with the actual mean
ing of the word (which you misrepresent, see below), there is a broad consen
sus as to the meaning: God appointed men to eternal life, and as a result, t
hey believed. The action of appointing preceded the action of believing. T
hat’s why your list of scholars is conspicuous by its absence, and why, I n
ote, even those you do quote do not address the actual text or its meaning.
3) This is a classic error of hermeneutics and logic. The issue is not, “
in the less than ten other uses of this verb in the New Testament does it re
fer to God’s eternal decree?” but “in this passage is it properly transla
ted “ordained” or “appointed” so that the meaning of the passage makes r
eference to such a decree? The answer is clear.
4) There are two elements to your error at this point. First, Liddell and
Scott is not a koine Greek lexicon. It is not a New Testament lexicon. I n
ote you do not cite from the actual lexicons that deal with the New Testamen
t, and that for good reason: they all contradict you! But choosing a lexico
n that is not even specifically about koine Greek speaks volumes. But even
louder than this error is the simple fact that you happen to have blown the
assertion. Liddell and Scott do give “ordain” as the meaning of tassw in
section III, number 2, “appoint, ordain, order, prescribe.” Even more dev
astating is the fact that the verbal form cited as being translated this way
is almost identical to that in Acts 13:48 (tetagmena). Hence, you have not
only chosen the wrong lexicon, you didn’t even get what it says correctly.
It is yet another testimony against you.
5) Yes, the KJV does, but modern translations are much more accurate at thi
s point, “and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints.
” In any case, the passage is only relevant for establishing a general sem
antic range for the term tassw. The passage, however, does not contain a pe
riphrastic construction that parallels its use at Acts 13:48. There tassw i
s a simple aorist active. To make the passage relevant to the argument you
are attempting to put forward, you would have to explain how an aorist verba
l form in another author in a completely different context is relevant to th
e use in Acts 13:48. But there is more. In 1 Corinthians 16:15 the verb is
active and has a direct object. Hence it was something the household of St
ephanos did: they dedicated themselves to a particular task. But the perfec
t participle in Acts 13:48 is passive. This is something that was done to t
hose who believed. You have to attempt to argue a middle voice for the part
iciple, which is not only rare, but in this context, next to impossible to d
efend. In any case, you have not begun to provide a meaningful ground for y
our reference of this passage, and hence it must be rejected.
6) One Anglican divine does not equal “many Greek experts,” Dave, and giv
en that Alford did not even attempt to deal with 1) Lukan usage (which, obvi
ously, is the first sphere of interest to us: Acts 22:10 and 28:13 should be
the first passages we examine, and both support the understanding of “appo
inted/ordained” not “disposed”; 2) the periphrastic construction and its
resultant tense meaning, we have little basis for putting much stock in his
comment. Yet, you said “many” and we only have one. You did cite a few o
thers later on, but only their commentary and interpretation, not their disc
ussion of the actual translation of the text. I can find “Greek scholars”
who believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel or who deny the resurrection of
Christ. That is not the issue. The relevant question, obviously, is, “Do
these ‘many’ Greek scholars deal with the actual textual issues at hand, s
uch as Lukan usage, the periphrastic, the prevalence of the passive particip
le over a middle form, etc.? You do not cite any for us.
7) There is no question that both Erasmus, in his work on what would eventu
ally become the Textus Receptus, and the King James translators themselves,
were deeply influenced by the Latin Vulgate. I do have to wonder, Dave, if
you would repeat this defense verbatim when speaking, for example, at Joseph
Chambers’ church, a church that defends and supports Gail Riplinger and Ki
ng James Onlyism? I know you are not fully KJV Only (though that comment yo
u made at dinner about Sinaiticus seems to indicate you have strong leanings
that direction: I hope you will refrain, in the future, from repeating the
false idea that Sinaiticus was found in a trash can, which is manifestly unt
rue), but you seem to have inclinations toward the KJV, which makes this who
le argument on Acts 13:48 rather problematic for you. Be that as it may, th
e meaning of the Greek periphrastic construction has not been determined by
reference to the Latin Vulgate: instead, Jerome knew what you seemingly do n
ot: that the underlying Greek plainly speaks of a divine action resulting in
the belief of those so ordained.
8) See #6.
9) It surely does (I wonder if you likewise accept the viewpoints expressed
in this source on such things as the “rapture” or millennial views?). Ho
wever, it does so primarily as commentary, not as, noted above, exegesis. I
ndeed, this seems to be your primary source, hence, you seem to be following
Rendall at this point. However, the criticism noted above is relevant here
as well, for the only passage cited is non-Lukan and in a very dissimilar c
ontext.
10) Yes, Robertson did not interpret the passage as deciding the issue, but
, you will note, he did not mistranslate it nor would he support your assert
ion that ordained is a “wrong” rendering: he says it is not best, but adop
ts “appointed” instead (not “disposed”). Again, however, you have muddi
ed the waters by confusing a Greek grammarian’s theological interpretations
with a Greek grammarians comments on the grammar and syntax of a passage.
Robertson says Luke does not tell us why these Gentiles “ranged” themselve
s on God’s side. I think it is clear that it does, and when we realize tha
t no one, outside of God’s grace, chooses God over evil, the answer is ever
clearer. But again, you misuse Robertson’s commentary as if it is a matte
r of Greek translation: it is not. The only relevance would be toward your
use of the context argument, not in support of your assertion that there is
some great conflict over the actual translation of tassw here. There isn’t
.
11) The only point in which your argument has any kind of even minority sup
port is in your assertion that the context in some way ameliorates the stron
g statement of divine sovereignty by reference to the disposition of the Jew
s. Specifically, that since the Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eter
nal life (13:46), this provides the “mirror” so to speak in which to view
the meaning of tassw. But there are at least two compelling reasons why the
attempted explanation fails: 1) no reason exists to see such a parallel in
the language. Luke does not use tassw in 13:46, which would have provided a
perfect parallel, the Jews not being “disposed” and the Gentiles being “
disposed,” but instead Luke uses completely different words, indicating no
parallel in his thinking, and 2) there is no such thing as a person who is “
disposed” to eternal life in the first place. As I have already noted, Dav
e, the very idea that you believe that there are people who are “disposed”
to eternal life, aside from being utterly unbiblical, likewise lands you in
the middle of having to answer the question, “So why was Dave Hunt dispose
d to eternal life and someone else was not?” You are still left teaching t
hat some people are better than others, and the reason why one believes and
another does not is found in the person and not in God.
Acts 13:48 teaches the divine sovereignty of God over men in the matter
of faith and salvation, Dave. Your attempts to get around this have failed
. But, hopefully, many will be blessed by the demonstration of your error,
at the very least. I do hope you will cease to fight against this truth, an
d will come to accept it.
In Conclusion
When I first read Chosen But Free by Dr. Norman Geisler, Dave, I was gr
eatly concerned about the level of confusion it would engender in the minds
of many. Norman is a well known scholar with a great reputation, and I knew
that many would accept his redefinition of long-established terms without g
iving it a second thought, resulting in all sorts of confusion. That is why
I wrote The Potter’s Freedom. And I have seen that work help so many. In
reality, the debate prompted by the publication of those two books has actu
ally facilitated the spread of Reformed theology. The reason is simple: whe
n the truth of God is openly discussed, the message of Scripture can, in fac
t, be plainly taught, and defended.
I believe the same is true regarding What Love Is This? God will bring
much good from this situation as well. Here are the things I see coming ou
t of this situation:
1) Those who are already Reformed in their theology will be encouraged
. Why? Because your book fails to even begin to make a coherent or compell
ing case. Your use of simply wild-eyed, shrill ad-hominem in the form of gr
ossly inaccurate and unfair attacks upon Augustine, Calvin, and Luther, comb
ined with the utter lack of accurate exegesis, and the constant presence of
emotionally charged, but logically invalid argumentation, certainly says to
me, and to many others with whom I have had contact, that here is another ex
ample of the inability of the non-Reformed side to make a decent case.
2) Your followers will be all charged up to attack Reformed theology.
While this is unfortunate, you have handed them rifles filled with blanks,
quite honestly, and any semi-prepared Reformed believer will be able to poin
t out the many, many holes in the argumentation they put forward. And when
folks who are holding What Love is This? in one hand read what Spurgeon real
ly said, or read about all the things Calvin did that you absolutely would h
ave to mention to be even semi fair in your treatment of him, they will have
to wonder about the entirety of your presentation. And when they then see
the errors in argumentation, citation, and exegesis that fill the pages of y
our work...well, I know a number of people who once decried Reformed theolog
y who today embrace it because of the debate that was opened up between myse
lf and Dr. Geisler.
3) Many will learn the importance of the phrases sola scriptura, tota
scriptura, and semper reformanda. Sola scriptura because of the fact that y
ou hold to your traditions so tenaciously while at the same time denying voc
iferously their very existence. This is probably the single biggest lesson
I hope people will take from this open letter. What could cause Dave Hunt t
o engage in so much misrepresentation, eisegesis...even to the point of sidi
ng with the NWT at Acts 13:48? What force could bring about this result? I
say it is the force of tradition. Your traditions run deep, but it is a pa
rt of your tradition to eschew traditions! So, you say you have none, and h
ence, do not allow those you have to be examined in the light of Scripture.
Therefore the necessity of the other two statements, tota scriptura (all of
Scripture) and semper reformanda, always reforming. We all have our tradit
ions, and it is necessary that we take those traditions to the Word constant
ly. We cannot do that unless we acknowledge their presence. When we refuse
to do that, we must, of necessity, subject the Word to our traditions. And
that is what you have done, Dave. You have turned your traditional interpr
etation, for example, of John 3:16 into the very Word of God itself. To que
stion you on that is to question the very Bible itself! This is why you eng
age in the kind of argumentation that marks What Love is This? And hopefull
y people who read this letter and listen to the programs we have done and, L
ord willing, watch the debate you have agreed to do with me, will find that
out.
Finally, Dave, I must admit that I doubt very much that this letter wil
l change your mind. People like Tom DelNoce have already said most of these
things to you. You ignored them, and I imagine you will ignore this letter
as well (though, on matters of fact, such as the Spurgeon misrepresentation
, you cannot possibly leave that assertion in print without being dishonest
in the matter). But the difference is, you have said, in writing and in per
son, that you will debate me. I will be asking you all these questions, Dav
e, in front of microphones and video cameras. You and I speak to many of th
e same people as we travel and lecture. You can’t avoid these things. I w
ill be pressing them upon you. I would love to see you retract your asserti
ons and correct your errors. I really would. But until that day, I will tr
ust God to reveal to His sheep His truth, knowing that yet once again, your
book has proven the old adage true: truth shines most brightly against the b
ack-drop of error.
James White
Update 5/16/02
On May 16th The Berean Call posted Mr. Hunt's response to this Open Letter.
You can read it by clicking here. As you will note when reading this respo
nse, Loyal Publishing has invited Mr. Hunt and myself to write a debate, poi
nt/counterpoint book on the subject of Calvinism. I have agreed to do so.
I will respond, briefly, to this recent reply by Dave Hunt on The Dividing L
ine on May 18th, 2002 (for those accessing the archives of the Dividing Line
at www.straitgate.com/aom).
http://vintage.aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html |
|
