In Dave Hunt’s recent Berean Call newsletter we find the question and the end of the answer below.
Question: In the July ’05 Letters section,“TF of Ireland,” a self-proclaimed “Calvinist,” acknowledged that Tom and Dave are saved. Is it possible for someone who believes only in the soteriology of Calvin to be saved? Specifically, that God has to first change a person’s heart. Then…with the gift of grace, faith and salvation in Ephesians 2:8-9,man afterwards, by God’s decree, will come to Him (John 6:37), and fulfill God’s requirement for him to believe and repent. Again, assuming that the fruits and works that follow are genuine, could this soteriology allow for salvation, apart from attributing any part of it to man’s free will (John 1:12-13)? Can you extend a statement of being a fellow believer to TF (and other Calvinists) as he has to you?
Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all—and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they “shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life” (Jn 5:24). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so.
In all these years, Hunt has yet to demonstrate how Calvinism has a false Gospel. In the newsletter Hunt goes on to equivocate many things like this paragraph.
Yes, there are many shades and colors of Calvinists. Like Lutherans, many but not all Calvinists (most Presbyterians) have been baptized as babies. They believe, as did many of their parents, that infant baptism saves. Calvin even declared that the children of the elect are themselves automatically among the elect—and whether one’s parents were elect or not, if one was baptized as a baby, even by an unsaved Catholic priest, that act made one a child of God. “Confirmation” only confirms this delusion. Obviously, anyone believing such a false “gospel” is not saved.
Presbyterians (the ones I know) don’t believe that infant baptism saves, but it that it brings them into the Covenant. Regardless of what John Calvin taught(Hunt’s words here are debatable), Hunt went from talking about Presbyterians to John Calvin. Is Hunt also telling us that John Calvin believed in the Roman Catholic process of confirmation? Maybe Dave should cite his source. Also, Calvinism does not equal all that John Calvin believed. How many times are folks going to have to tell him this before he gets it? I would like to ask Dave Hunt where he believes infants go when they die? Then maybe I can take his answer and draw some false conclusions from it.
We get to again read about how it was John Calvin who was ruling and had Servetus put to death. Dave needs another history lesson and Tim Challies provides a great lessonfor him. Hunt continues to talk about what he believes John Calvin believed and rallies against that instead of what a Calvinist today believes. Maybe a good study in Covenant theology would help him.
Again we get to read the “whosoever will” and the “Man must come to God of his own free will and offer himself willingly” arguments is thrown up as if that is the Gospel itself. When will Dave answer the “Who will come and why will they come to Christ?” questions.
We are then treated with a Greek lesson on Ephesians 2:8-9.
Faith is a feminine noun, while the demonstrative pronoun that (“it is” is not in the Greek)is neuter and could not refer to faith. The Greek will not permit “faith” to be the gift.
Dave has admitted he doesn’t know Greek so why the lesson? Dr. White has answered him over and over again, but for my readers sake (all five of them) a reminder. The next lesson in scriptural Huntegesis comes from quoting Scriptures that say “your faith” and “thy faith” with the concluding refutation that “These are odd expressions, if faith is not one’s own but only from God.” When I hear such a refutation I think of raising my fist in the air just like the Undercover Brother and saying “Solid.” But I don’t want to insult fans of UB. So when Hebrews 12:2 says,”…Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith” we should take that to mean that we are really the author and perfecter of our faith? Is there any sense in which Dave understands that there is nothing we have gotten in our lives, especially as Christians, that’s not a gift from God?
Dave goes on to Huntegete John 6:37 & 44 again. He’s been answered over and over again here too. Let’s look.
In John 6, the emphasis is upon believing, coming, eating, and drinking—clearly the responsibility of the person. Yes, the Father draws and gives, but to eat and drink requires an act of one’s will—God does not force-feed anyone, but the Calvinist avoids this fact.
Sure, we have the responsibility of all of those things and no one denies this, but those actions are not what saves us. God saves us. To do the things Dave mentions is an act of one’s will. A will in which cannot do until God enables. The very question Jesus is answering from all of the grumbling is that those who went away aren’t able to believe without the Father’s intervention.
There is more to Dave’s answer so go read it for yourself if you can stomach it. His argument is basically “Calvinists believe….” and “They do this and say that…” Dave, what do you believe and why? Telling folks that you disagree with Calvinists isn’t a positive affirmation of your own positions in answering these questions. You don’t even give your own readers a solid exegetical answer they can hold to. Maybe next time.
Mark
tagged as calvinism, Dave Hunt in apologetics,Arminianism,calvinism,Church Issues,Gospel,heresy,theology
About the author
Mark is a Christian, husband and father. He is a businessman attending seminary in the off hours working on his M.Div. preparing for vocational ministry.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Dave Hunt is beginning to bore me. It seems the guy hasn’t read a single response offered to him since he took up the crusade against Calvinism. Maybe its time God called him home before he does more harm to the Gospel.
There is a smiley that describes Dave Hunt perfectly.
Unfortunately, Dave is becoming more and more unstable with each rant on Calvinism that he puts out there. Hopefully, his readership will notice this and stop listening.
I think those are rather unkind things to say about a fellow brother in Christ. I have actually had lunch with Dave Hunt and he is a gentle, humble, and intelligent man who has a passion for Christ. He is an amazing researcher and is not just someone that speaks without first finding out the facts. He does not make up things or add to the bible like a certain person named John Calvin did. If you are really interested in understanding the point of view that Dave Hunt is coming from, you should read his book “What Love is this?” before condemning him so, rather than just a few bits and pieces from the Berean Call.
red rover,
Dave Hunt may be a nice person and that’s not the issue. Though my friend blackcalvinist may have a point. How is it that Dave put’s out a newsletter that isn’t a good place to get his true and accurate point of view?
As far as being a good researcher. I emailed the Berean Call site about Dave’s alleged research showing that the first 5 chapters of Acts was written in Hebrew. The emailed I got back sent was a list that I found within a few minutes that was verbatum from a Yawist website which you can see here: http://www.ynca.com/Mini%20Studies/hebrewAramaic.htm I believe this bit on Acts was actually written in the 2nd ed. of What Love is This? James White address that here: http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=29
As far as What Love is This? a whole website including non-Calvinists was set-up telling Dave that he was told not to write the book because he was so far off base. He wrote it anyways.
And I remain unconvinced that Hunt in the time span of around 4 months was able to go from not having read the church fathers nor Calvinist writers to knowing more about Calvinism than most Calvinists and having none to tons of Calvinist authored books.