Friday, March 03, 2006

Alan Kurschner: Mr. Ignorant

Alan Kurschner is a James White wannabe who knows about as much theology as my cat knows New Testament Greek. Alan's recent article, Dave Hunt Denies Original Sin, takes his ignorance to a new level.

Alan's proof that Dave Hunt has denied original sin is based on a statement Hunt made that babies do not go to hell. Hear me again: Dave Hunt said that dead babies do not go to hell.

For Alan, to maintain that all babies go to heaven is equal to denying the doctrine of original sin. Alan apparently believes at least some dead babies will go to hell and burn forever . What a lovely God he has.

The "babies in hell" view is preposterous. While John Calvin, and James White no doubt, would be proud of Alan, other Calvinists would be appalled. Al Mohler and Dan Akin wrote Why we Believe Young Children Who Die Go to Heaven which Alan should take the time to read.

Mohler and Akin wrote,
in James 4:17, the Bible says, "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." The Bible is clear that we are all born with a sin nature as a result of being in Adam (Roman 5:12). This is what is called the doctrine of original sin. However, the Scriptures make a distinction between original sin and actual sins. While all are guilty of original sin, moral responsibility and understanding is necessary for our being accountable for actual sins (Deuteronomy 1:30; Isaiah 7:16). It is to the one who knows to
do right and does not do it that sin is reckoned. Infants are incapable of such decisions.

But this is precisely what Dave Hunt said! Alan quoted Hunt as saying, "The fact is that they [babies] did not sin. They died as babies. It wouldn’t be just to condemn to hell. What are they going to suffer for in hell? What deeds have they done?"

NewFlash! Alan's next article: Al Mohler Denies Original Sin!

Alan Kruschner: Color him ignorant.

13 Comments:

At Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:41:00 PM, Blogger David B. Hewitt said...

"The fact is that they [babies] did not sin. They died as babies. It wouldn’t be just to condemn to hell. What are they going to suffer for in hell? What deeds have they done?"

Well, hello, Charles! It seems you have your own blog now. Well, good. Glad to know you'll be here. :)

The issue that I think was really being addressed by White on his Dividing Line program and therefore Kurschner on his post was what you posted above that I quoted. Dave Hunt said that God wouldn't be JUST to condemn babies to Hell. This of course is not true because of original sin; God is just to condemn everyone to Hell, regardless of age, regardless of whether or not they are born.

Now, am I or Alan or Dr. White saying that all babies end up in Hell? The answer is no, and the reason for it is that we don't know how God deals with all of the unborn (and also David's comments about the son that was born to Bathsheba who died; David was pretty sure he'd go to his son). We cannot call God unjust to condemn anyone, nor can we be sure of how he deals with unborn children, or even very young children. Do they all go to Heaven? Do some of them? We just don't know, and because of that, we have no basis at all in Scripture to suggest that all babies who die go to Heaven (or the contrary).

Besides, since the "wages of sin is death" as is clear from Romans 6:23, if babies were not guilty of original sin, why then would they die?

These I do believe are the reasons that Alan, Dr. White, and others had in saying that Dave Hunt denied original sin -- he called God unjust in His punishment. So, whether Mr. Hunt really meant what he said or wasn't thinking, that is one thing, but his words did indeed deny it.

SDG,
David Hewitt

 
At Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:56:00 PM, Anonymous Eye said...

Charles,

Amen and Amen!! Keep up the most excellent work brother.

In Him,

Eye

 
At Saturday, March 04, 2006 3:40:00 PM, Blogger Scripture Searcher said...

Flyswatter:

Please do not write untruths
(lies) when stating your opinions.


It belittles both you and the subject you desire to propose or oppose.

 
At Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:13:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Hello, scripture searcher!

What untruths?

 
At Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:27:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Hello, David!

Dave Hunt said that God wouldn't be JUST to condemn babies to Hell. This of course is not true because of original sin; God is just to condemn everyone to Hell, regardless of age, regardless of whether or not they are born.

Thank you for clearing that up for me by saying that God is just to send unborn babies to hell.

The babies have committed no sin. Their brains are undeveloped, yet you say God would be just to send them to hell to burn forever.

The potter can do whatever he wants, right? Even if it means sending a precious baby to burn and scream in hell forever. All for the glory of God!

No! That is not the loving God of the Bible! Read Mohler's article again. Everyone who dies in infancy goes to heaven.

 
At Saturday, March 04, 2006 6:40:00 PM, Blogger David B. Hewitt said...

Charles,

That wasn't my point. What I am saying is, biblically speaking, we don't have the grounds to say how many babies that die unborn or in infancy will end up in Heaven.

Do I think some of them do end up in Heaven? Sure. Do I say with certainty (or even certitude) that all of them do? No, I do not.

The reason for this is the sin of Adam, known as "original sin." The doctrine is derived mostly from Romans 5:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned.
Romans 5:13 In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law.
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One.
Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man's trespass the many died, how much more have the grace of God and the gift overflowed to the many by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure what Paul means by "not charged to one's account when there is no law" but I can tell you want it doesn't mean -- it doesn't mean that people were not guilty of sin. The reason I say that is because Paul says so in the very next verse. He says that death reigned from Adam to Moses -- and here is the clincher -- "even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression." This cannot mean the exact same act because no one since Adam and Eve have had access to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. No, this must refer to the fact that he disobeyed God's command.

Even people who did not sin by breaking a command of God -- over these people death reigned as well. Sin brings death, as Romans 6:23 of course tells us, but God said so in Genesis long ago. Our first parents died spiritually immediately, and then died physically as well -- both being a result of the fall.

You are right in saying that God does all things for His glory, but even if He did not, this truth of original sin would remain. The Bible is pretty clear here.

Therefore, regardless of whether or not a person sins in the likeness of Adam's original transgression, that person is guilty of Original Sin. God is then just to condemn any and everyone.

Hope that helps!

For God's Glory Alone!
David Hewitt

 
At Monday, March 06, 2006 11:16:00 AM, Blogger Charles said...

Hello, David!
we don't have the grounds to say how many babies that die unborn or in infancy will end up in Heaven.

I disagree. Calvinist theology does not have the grounds but the Bible gives a clear indication.


I'm not sure what Paul means by "not charged to one's account when there is no law" but I can tell you want it doesn't mean -- it doesn't mean that people were not guilty of sin.

You're not sure? David, I appreciate your responses but please try and limit them to things you know.

This one phrase that you are unsure of is important. It bears on this entire discussion. Thank you for bringing Romans 5 into the discussion.

I would like you to do me a favor. If you do this for me then we can discuss Romans 5 and original sin. We will need to discuss most all of it, not merely the few verses you selectively quoted.

Please read Romans 5 once a day for one week. Read the entire chapter and nothing else. Do not read what James White, John Calvin, John Piper or anyone on the internet says about it. Do not correspond with your Calvinist friends and get their opinions on it. Just read what God said. Read it in a different translation every day if you can. If you can read it in Greek then do that each day instead.

After you do that, I'll discuss original sin with you.

I am praying for you. I think you might be open to the truth. Don't let the fog of Calvinist thought cloud your mind. Be open to what God says in his Word.

Remember, pride is a terrible thing. If you do finally seen the truth, your Calvinist friends will disown and shun you. Are you prepared for that?

I am praying for you. Please read Romans 5 and let God speak to your heart, my brother.

 
At Monday, March 06, 2006 2:58:00 PM, Blogger David B. Hewitt said...

Charles:

I didn't consult any of my "Calvinist friends" as you call them before I posted what I did. I've read Romans 5 many times, and it was even the subject of a recent Sunday School lesson at my church.

I appreciate your prayers of course. I am always still learning, but know this: The Bible teaches clearly all "5 points" of Calvinism. I don't need any of the aforementioned men to tell me so. Like George Whitefield before me, I believe them because the Bible has taught them to me.

When we deal with Scripture, we need to take it in light of the entire Bible, the Whole Counsel of God. If we fail to do this, we fail to understand doctrine. We let the Bible interpret itself. We understand a passage from the context (textual, historical, cultural). We learn the original languages to bring out meaning, and we learn simply grammar to understand what terms like "all" mean.

In your post, you misrepresented Alan Kurschner's view on why he said Dave Hunt denied original sin. I corrected it, and you've ignored it.

My intention has been to give you the benefit of the doubt, and though I do think you have an underlying desire to see the truth come out, YOU seem to be the one who is ignoring biblical evidence.

I used to be mostly an Arminian. I then started learning what the Scriptures had to say, had my mischaracterizations of Reformed Theology corrected by my Calvinist missions professor at seminary (wow, Calvinists really DO believe in sharing the Gospel!), and began my move toward the understanding I now have, which grows deeper nearly every day as I study the Word of God more (I'm studying Romans 9 at the moment).

You challenged me to read Romans 5. That's fine and all, but what about the challenge Scripture Searcher gave to you about John 6, especially John 6:37?

I guess all of that said to say I don't think I'll be back. I do indeed hope that God will reveal more truth to us both, for His glory.

SDG,
David Hewitt

 
At Monday, March 06, 2006 5:04:00 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Hello, David!

You quote Romans 5:13, admit you do not know what it means, and then rant on me for wanting to discuss it? You say you want to discuss "original sin", cite scripture, and then get mad at me for wanting to discuss it!

had my mischaracterizations of Reformed Theology corrected by my Calvinist missions professor at seminary

So it wasn't the Bible but your professor that "converted" you.

I understand now why you are not interested in the exegesis of Romans 5. You have already admitted that you do not know what it means.

I tried, David. But you must be open to the truth. I will keep praying for you.

 
At Monday, March 06, 2006 7:22:00 PM, Anonymous Eye said...

Charles,

Great topic and excellent quote from Mohler. Our Hyper - Calvinist friends are on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand they want to argue that some babies are 'elect' and others are damned to Hell. Obviously Mohler and others who study God's Word see God's grace in protecting, caring for and loving His creation. I don't recollect any of us being asked if we wanted to be placed here on earth, original sin and all. Nope, not a one of us had a choice in the matter -- but, nevertheless here we are.

So to my question for all the Hyper -(TULIP)Calvinists or whatever label you wear, if Mohler is correct in his understanding of God's Word -- and I believe he is on this point, then this clearly disarms the concept of:

"Unconditional Election - Since human beings cannot choose for themselves, God by His eternal decree has chosen or elected some to be counted as righteous, without any conditions being placed on that election."

does it not??

Here's the quandry. If a baby makes it to two years of age and dies -- it goes to heaven based on Mohler's and others study of God's Word. If that same baby makes it to a point in its life where it clearly understands it's 'left hand from its right' and can exercise 'moral responsibility' (let's argue for discussion's sake 10 years of age)and then it rejects the glear gospel message and dies in a car wreck, certainly that child goes to Hell. The child was 'covered' by God's atoning work through Jesus at Calvary until such time as he understood the truth of the gospel and rejected it.

So, the Unconditional Election theology does not provide for the two scenarios I've detailed above for you could clearly argue the child was either 'elect' or 'non-elect', only God knows and it could have gone to Hell while being a non-elect infant. Keep in mind one could also argue that all infants are 'elect' until they cross that dividing line of 'moral responsibility' in their lives as Mohler states from his study of God's Word.

As the Calvinsits are so found of saying, you are either 'elect' or you are not. Well according to Mohler's study they are all elect until they reach 'moral responsibility'...

Yep, the horns of a dilemma!

In Him,

Eye

 
At Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:41:00 AM, Anonymous John the missionary said...

Charles, thank the Lord I found this place!

Like Tim, I'm with the IMB. We're on opposite sides of the world but with email it's just a click away.

FINALLY someone is kicking it with the Flounders, or um, Founders. They are not greatly admired at the IMB as you can imagine. Some good people have talked to Tom Ascol but he is unteachable.

I cannot believe the venom spread by these brothers. It has even infected the IMB to some extent. The few that are here never cease to spread their "doctrines of grace" while the world goes to hell!

Fight the good fight, Charles.

John the missionary

 
At Monday, March 13, 2006 10:28:00 PM, Blogger Simon said...

Charles,

I have recently had a conversation with Alan that did not go very well at all.

I sympathize with you a lot, I think, about Calvinists and how they treat Arminians .. particular those like James White.

However, when you say, "Alan Kurschner is a James White wannabe who knows about as much theology as my cat knows New Testament Greek. Alan's recent article, Dave Hunt Denies Original Sin, takes his ignorance to a new level," what you're doing is becoming what you hate.

You're doing exactly what TheCalvinistGadfly does, which is to divide the body of Christ, and to slay your Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

Please, let's work together to bring healing, unity, and understanding to this debate. Drop me a line hearkening@gmail.com or stop by my blog: http://thinkingdeeply.com

 
At Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that you losers waste your time with this stuff is an original sin. Let God do what he has to do. Why question it? Why don't you show some faith in that God will take care of it and accept it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home