|
|
:: Monday, June 24, 2002 (Updated 11.08.03) ::
What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God. By Dave Hunt
Sisters: Loyal Publishing, 2002, 436 pp., $14.00 paper.
Note: Over a year ago, I wrote a rather scathing review (including the original comments) while fired up over the serious flaws in this book. Then my new Arminian friend Mac Swift took me to task and gave me a good "fisking" (with lengthy discussions attached) at his website. In light of his reproof, I've rewritten the review to reflect my assertions in a tone less strident. That's not to say Mac will like it, but hopefully it's an improvement.
Tim LaHaye, bestselling coauthor of the Left Behind series: "This may well be the most important book written in the 21st century..."
Dr. LaHaye, what absurdity is this? I'm fully cognizant that the 21st century is but an infant, and I assume that you meant "the most important book written" thus far, rather than predicting that this garbled tome will rule for ten decades. Your full endorsement on the first page refers to "the false God of Augustinianism and Calvinism," leaving no doubt as to your alliance with Hunt; I fear that you haven't studied the issues carefully enough to avoid being left behind on this topic.
1 Peter 3:15 commands "gentleness and respect" for individuals in our apologetic, even as we "demolish arguments and pretensions" (2 Cor 10:5) that they espouse. While I attack Hunt's false assertions, I have no desire to impugn the character of the man himself. He's a Christian brother who means well, but sadly blundered in releasing this flawed book, despite the attempts of many to correct him prior to publication. Support from leaders like Dr. LaHaye has only encouraged him in this misguided assault.
What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God is a bizarre diatribe. Hunt asserts that "great care has been taken not to misunderstand Calvinism or to misjudge its proponents." He then consistently distorts the doctrines of Calvinism, creating straw men which he burns at the stake with little difficulty. The misrepresentations in the book make it difficult to review--it's a challenge not to become so infuriated that one simply hurls it into the trash and walks away. Originally I was going to address each of the dozens of notations I had made, but I decided that others have done an excellent job already (see www.whatloveisthis.com and Alpha & Omega Ministries), so I'm only going to touch on a few key points, all the while struggling to be charitable (I'll leave the first couple of drafts to your imagination).
One of the more frustrating and abhorrent aspects of What Love is This? is that Hunt uses blatant falsehoods in pursuit of his objectives. Either his research skills are deficient, or he utilizes brazen lies because he is convinced that Calvinism must be defeated by any means necessary. I believe Dave Hunt is a well-meaning Christian brother, so I reject the latter explanation--that can only mean that he is unqualified when it comes to the topic of Calvinism. Yes, that is a harsh accusation, but Hunt placed his views in the public forum by publishing this book, and so he must face public challenges to its contents. (Note: Keep in mind that many of my complaints are matters of objective fact, and having nothing to do with the theological disagreements I have with Mr. Hunt.)
Hunt's inability to fairly portray the doctrines of grace can be explained by the fact that in August of 2000 he admitted that he knew virtually nothing about Calvinism, but by February 2001 he acclaimed himself as an expert who probably knew "more about Calvinism than most people who call themselves Calvinists." Despite Hunt's busy ministry schedule, he somehow became an expert in a few short months. Incredulity rears its skeptical head.
Let us begin our review with a cursory examination of Calvinism. I actually prefer the term "Reformed," since I don't follow the man John Calvin, and don't agree with everything he taught. In a nutshell, Reformed doctrine emphasizes the sovereignty of God in all things, including salvation. He is "the author and finisher of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2). The Reformed view is known as monergism (God working alone), in contrast to synergism (God's work plus some sort of contribution from man). (Click here for an article contrasting monergism and synergism.)
The famous TULIP acronym is commonly utilized to summarize Calvinism. If you're not familiar with TULIP, please read this statement from John Piper's staff before continuing with the review: TULIP.
Some of Hunt's more embarrassing blunders occur when he claims Reformed thinkers for his own. Somehow he's convinced that J.C. Ryle and John Bunyan were on his side, and amazingly enough, he even conscripts John Newton, known to most of us as the former slave ship captain who wrote Amazing Grace after his conversion. Does he cite Newton? No, for that effort would fail miserably. He simply lists Newton as an opponent of Calvinism. I prefer to allow Newton to speak for himself in a letter written in 1775:
I have several times waived speaking about predestination or election,-- not that I am ashamed of the doctrine; because, if it be indeed absurd, shocking, and unjust, the blame will not deservedly fall upon me, for I did not invent it, but upon the Scriptures, where I am sure, it is laid down in as plain terms as that God created the heavens and the earth. I own I cannot but wonder, that persons professing any reverence for the Bible, should so openly and strongly declare their abhorrence of what the Bible so expressly teaches, namely, that there is a discrimination of persons by the grace and good pleasure of God, where by nature there is no difference; and that all things respecting the salvation of these persons, is infallibly secured by a Divine predestination.
I do not offer this as a rational doctrine, (though it be highly so to me,) but it is Scriptural, or else the Scripture is a mere nose of wax, and without a determinate meaning.
How can Hunt retain any credibility when he cites Newton as an opponent of Calvinist doctrine? James White has thoroughly documented Hunt's misrepresentation of Charles Spurgeon, perhaps the most noted Calvinist preacher of all time. Hunt states, "It is questionable whether Calvin himself believed in limited atonement. Certainly Spurgeon rejected it as heresy." Earlier, Hunt claimed that Spurgeon rejected Limited Atonement in "unequivocal language."
What did Spurgeon actually teach? The following quote is from an 1858 sermon called Particular Redemption.
It's rather lengthy, but this is an important point, since Hunt appeals to Spurgeon more than once in an effort to build his own case:
We are often told (I mean those of us who are commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists-and we are not very much ashamed of that; we think that Calvin, after all, knew more about the Gospel than almost any man who has ever lived, uninspired), we are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question-Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, "No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if"-and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will go back to the old statement-Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say "No;" you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.
That should put to rest any lingering claims to credibility by Dave Hunt. Spurgeon wasn't done, however. He seemed to anticipate attacks by those of Hunt's ilk. We continue with the same sermon:
Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.
So, whether you agree with Hunt's theology or Spurgeon's, there can be no doubt that Hunt has no right whatsoever to claim an alliance with Spurgeon against Calvinism in general, or limited atonement in particular.
Hunt delights in making forceful assertions based on his inability to comprehend what Calvinism teaches. For example, he's convinced that Calvinists can not be motivated to earnestly preach the gospel. After mentioning great Calvinist preachers and missionaries such as George Whitefield, Adoniram Judson and William Carey, he states: "Certainly, however, the zeal of such men and women in bringing the gospel to the world could not be because of their Calvinism but only in spite of it."
Are Calvinists allowed to make their case? Of course not.
"No matter how the Calvinist tries to argue to the contrary, such a belief can only lessen the zeal a reasonable person might otherwise have to reach the lost with the gospel of God's grace in Christ."
Dave said it, that settles it. Case closed. An almost humorously simplistic approach to theology is evident when Hunt attacks TULIP head-on: "Of the ten words making up the acronym TULIP, four (total, depravity, unconditional and irresistible) are not even found in the Bible and two (limited and perseverance) are each found only once."
Perhaps the distinction between descriptive terms and their meanings has eluded him. Perhaps he's forgotten that terms like "rapture" and "trinity" are not in the Bible, either.
My irritation increases when Hunt condescendingly attacks Calvinism with absurd arguments like this one:
(God cannot) use His sovereignty for evil. Cannot? Yes, cannot.
"Heresy!" cries the Calvinist. "God is infinite in power; there is nothing He can't do." Really? The very fact that He is infinite in power means He cannot fail…He cannot lie, cheat, steal, be mistaken, etc."
How can Dave Hunt deign to give us a lesson in logic after what we've seen in What Love is This? Does he really think that Calvinists are obtuse enough to demand a God who is allowed to lie, cheat and steal? It's simply excruciating to read a book written on this level. I'm not always irritated, though; sometimes I'm merely puzzled:
"As a result of Christ's death having paid the full penalty, no one will spend eternity in the lake of fire because of his sins."
Perhaps I haven't studied soteriology enough, but this strikes me as a rather novel approach to the atonement. I have been under the apparently misguided notion that there is a direct correlation between sin and judgment, even in Arminian Christian doctrine.
Hunt perversely delights in attacking John Piper, a leading Reformed preacher some have called a modern-day Puritan. Piper's "...Desiring God ignites a passion for God that would set the world ablaze if it were the norm and not the exception today," says noted thinker Os Guinness. Piper's The Justification of God, his analysis of Romans 9 in the Greek, is a tour de force; Hunt hasn't been bothered to learn Greek. After years of study, Piper has written extensively on his favorite Reformed theologian, Jonathan Edwards; Hunt claims to have mastered Reformed theology in a few months. None of this is enough to dissuade Hunt from derisive slander.
After making comments like "we can't make any sense out of this nonsense," "Are we going mad?" and "reason fails Piper once again," Hunt has had quite enough of John Piper:
We shake our heads in astonishment to read Piper's declaration that his aim in this book "is that the glorious Gospel of God's all-satisfying, omnipotent grace will be savored, studied and spread for the joy all peoples-in a never-ending legacy of Sovereign Joy." All peoples? Can he be serious?
Hunt's obnoxious condescension proves yet again that he has no idea what he's assaulting. Piper's statement is fully consistent with the view he espouses--Christ's blood "purchased men for God from every tribe, language, people and nation." (Revelation 5:9). Any dictionary could have told Dave that "peoples" is "a body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life." If "all peoples" meant every individual person, universalism would result; rather, all people groups will be represented in the kingdom, as Rev 5:9 makes clear. Hunt mocks that which he fails to grasp. Can anything be more pathetic in a book hailed as "essential for the serious student of God's Word"?
Note: After verbally agreeing to a debate, Hunt has been unwilling to meet James White's live debate challenge. White and Hunt have agreed to co-author a debate-style book for publication in early 2004, but hopefully a live debate will happen at some point, allowing everyone to see what happens when the doctrines of grace are presented accurately and Hunt's blatant distortions are challenged in cross-examination.
|
