What Love Is This?: Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God
by Dave Hunt
Sisters: Loyal Publishing, 2002, 436 pp., $14.00 paper.
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.[9]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.
"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."[11]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."[12]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.
(God cannot) use His sovereignty for evil. Cannot? Yes, cannot.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:
"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."[13]
"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."[14]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.
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?[19]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."[20] 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"?[21]
Hey Mac, it'll look pretty familiar. I added a little and removed some of the more inflammatory stuff, but it's still firmly opposed to the book.
Was the movie the final Matrix installment?
Yes it was actually, I've been contemplating blogging about it, but from a different angle than the typical reviewer might go. The movie hardly had any finality to it, and due to the pending release of the Matrix Online which continues the storyline from Revolutions with no forseeable end, it appears the Matrix is here to stay. >:-)
Well at least you didn't accuse Dave Hunt of being into witchcraft or anything, so at least I have that to be thankful for. :-D
I will say though, your gripe about him citing John Newton is misleading, because it's not his claim, but rather the claim of Norman F. Douty:
"Norman F. Douty...lists over 70 of the Church’s leading teachers, from the early centuries to the modern era, who stood firmly for the doctrine that Christ died on behalf of all men, not the elect only (Death of Christ, pages 136-163). Here are some of the names on the list: Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Martin Luther, Hugh Latimer, Myles Coverdale, Thomas Cranmer, Philip Melanchton, Archbishop Ussher, Richard Baxter, John Newton, John Bunyan, Thomas Scott, Henry Alford, Philip Schaff, Alfred Edersheim, H.C.G. Moule, W.H. Griffith Thomas, and A.T. Robertson."
The question is why Newton was listed. It obviously was not that much of an inaccurate list since John Wesley is a definite Arminian, so either it was a mistake, or Douty intentionally lied, or maybe it was based on something Newton wrote or said that sounded unequivocally in favour of unlimited atonement.
Mac,
at least you didn't accuse Dave Hunt of being into witchcraft or anything, so at least I have that to be thankful for. :-D
Hey, he's a fellow believer, not a heretic, even if he insinuates that my beliefs might be heretical.
I will say though, your gripe about him citing John Newton is misleading, because it's not his claim, but rather the claim of Norman F. Douty
If Hunt utilizes someone's material to make a point, he's responsible for it. Nothing in Hunt's citation indicates that he has any reservations about the content. I have serious doubts about some other names on the list, but I don't have any proof handy.
I don't have WLIT in front of me, but as I recall, Hunt was discussing Calvinism in general, not just Particular Redemption, when he offered up Douty's list of opponents. I assume it was a careless mistake, not a lie.
Your first rant was the best. I wouldn't guarantee that Hunt is well-meaning or Mr. LaHaye either. Mr. LaHaye is becoming a multi-millionaire off of his escapist books. You'd think that folks like he and Mr. Lindsey would be donating every single dime to foreign missions, ensuring that every poor lost soul gets to hear the Gospel at least once. But Mr. Falwell's college has a new giant swimming pool and student center thanks to Mr. LaHayes several millions.
As for Calvinism-Arminianism, Scripture provides ample evidence for both. To fall hard on one side or the other leads to error. Better to do what Job did and what Paul exhorted. Put our hands over our mouths and stop talking back to God.
I hadn't heard about the LaHaye pool. Interesting.
> As for Calvinism-Arminianism, Scripture provides ample evidence for both.
That's debatable. Since they're mutually exclusive, the Bible can't teach both unless it's incoherent. Either salvation is of God (Calvinism), or it's of God plus something from man (Arminianism). It can't be both, so one or both views have to be wrong.
>To fall hard on one side or the other leads to error.
If one of the views is correct, "falling hard" on that side would lead to truth rather than error. Of course, finding the right view is the trick. I happen to favor Calvinism now, although I didn't when I was in LaHaye's college.
> Better to do what Job did and what Paul exhorted. Put our hands over our mouths and stop talking back to God.
There's a difference between talking back to God and seeking to rightly divide the word of truth. If these things weren't to be studied, Paul and the Holy Spirit wasted a lot of time and space in the New Testament epistles.
Ahh I see you made a rewrite! I'll give it a read once I can think coherently again. Just came back from seeing a movie and spent hours of research trying to figure out what the ---- it all meant. I can barely see straight now. :-O