Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org
FREE PRESBYTERIAN ISSUES -- GOSPEL ISSUES -- PROTESTANT ISSUES -- EVANGELISM ISSUES -
- CALVINISM
ISSUES -- C.H. SPURGEON INDEX -- SERMON NOTES -- MAIN PAGE
DAVE HUNT'S ATTACK ON CALVIN AND CALVINISM
ENDORSED BY DAVID CLOUD
ANSWERED BY COLIN MAXWELL
I
became a Calvinist somewhere around 1981-82 just a few years after I
was saved. It was not an easy decision, but I studied carefully both
sides of the Calvinist/Arminian debate and came to the conclusion that
the Doctrines of Grace best express the teaching of the Bible regarding
salvation. I have continued to study the debate. I am no stranger to
anti Calvinist literature and anti Calvinist websites! Or to
corresponding with those who take the opposite view. I quite happily
fellowship and preach with those who disagree with my position. Both
groups believe we can do this because fundamentally we are both
preaching salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone…even
if we differ in some details. I rejoice in the many conversions John
Wesley saw…they rejoice in the many conversions of George
Whitefield etc., I appreciate when some of my non Calvinist friends
bring to my attention those verses which seem to vindicate the non
Calvinist position. It is always good to be forced back again and again
to the Bible to rethink our position. Truth never fears examination.
What I don't appreciate, however, is when my Calvinist faith is
caricatured and misrepresented. It is one thing to disagree with
something - it is an entirely different matter to grossly misrepresent
it. The first is built on honest principles…the latter is simply
built either on ignorance or worst still…the deceitful lie.
Early on in my Christian experience, I determined never to use the caricature method to promote my view. It is a despicable method, unworthy of the Christian faith.
Both
Hunt and Cloud have resorted to the use of the caricature. For example,
I emailed Cloud around January 2002 to point out that on his site
where he attacks Calvinism, he wrongly accuses Calvin of "denouncing the free offer of the gospel" I refute this misrepresentation elsewhere.
However, Cloud refuses to remove it from his site…although (I
notice) that he is quite happy to quote Hunt quoting Calvin from 1 John
2:2 when he (Calvin) says "Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world and in the goodness of God is offered to all men without distinction…" Either
Calvin did believe in the free offer or he didn't. Cloud wants to have
it both ways. We are left wondering which page on Cloud's site do we
take seriously? Hunt is pretty fond of the misrepresentation also. He
calmly tried to sell the idea that Spurgeon rejected the Doctrine of
Limited Atonement and actually persists in this line. This too is pretty easy to refute. One of the allegations he tries to sell us (and is peddled again here by Cloud) is that "There
is no escaping the fact that in Calvin's entire Institutes of the
Christian Religion there is not one mention of God's love for the
lost!" (p. 151) I refute this weird allegation below.
What
makes these men do these things? Is it ignorance just waiting to be
instructed? Is there another agenda? I will let the reader - both
Calvinist and non Calvinist - judge for themselves. One thing is true
though…misrepresenting Calvinism doesn't work. It didn't work
when I started to research it for myself and it won't work now when
others are doing also. For those who want to examine this in depth, I
suggest that you read this page first and then you will see why we say
that Hunt is so confused in his understanding of what Calvinism does
teach.
"The
most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometimes,
I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue: and, to this
day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of
matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John
Calvin and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to
defend your man of straw — shoot at it or burn it as you will,
and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were
never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were
never in existence." (C.H. Spurgeon Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit:
7:550)
********************************
Hunt's book What love is this? as quoted by Cloud in black. My response in red.
"Most
of those today, including evangelical leaders, who hold Calvin in great
esteem, are not aware that they have been captivated by the writings of
a devout Roman Catholic newly converted to Luther's Protestantism only
two years previously (in the early part of 1533). Oddly, in spite of
its paramount importance and his voluminous writings, we have no clear
testimony in Calvin's own words concerning his salvation. He refers
only to 'a sudden conversion' which subdued his 'over-much hardened'
heart, but gives no description of how or what happened. By any
standard, this young man, though unusually bright, was far from mature
in the Christian faith. Unquestionably, his Institutes could not
possibly have come from a deep and fully developed evangelical
understanding of Scripture. Instead, they came from the energetic
enthusiasm of a recent law graduate and fervent student of philosophy
and religion, a young genius devoted to Augustine and a newly adopted
cause. At the time of writing his Institutes Calvin, far from being an
apostle like Paul, was a brand-new convert to the faith who had
scarcely begun to walk with the Lord. Therefore, it could not have been
spiritual maturity under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that brought
forth the Institutes, but the power of Calvin's brilliant legal mind."
(pp. 38, 39, 40).
The only reason why Calvinists
hold Calvin in great esteem is that we judge his writings to conform to
the teaching of the word of God. Otherwise he probably would have been
forgotten long ago.
Calvin clearly testifies to his conversion experience for us in his
last will. Whether this satisfies a man who can hardly speak peaceably
of him remains to be seen.
Although a young believer when he first wrote the Institutes - let no
man despise thy youth comes to mind here - Calvin revised and added to
the Institutes several times over the years. During these years, his
counsel was sought by many Church leaders over the whole of Europe.
"Calvin's almost complete agreement with Augustine is nothing short of
astounding. Calvin called himself 'an Augustinian theologian.' Of
Augustine he said, 'whom we quote frequently, as being the best and
most faithful witness of all antiquity.' It is Calvinists themselves
who insist upon the connection between Calvin and Augustine. McGrath
writes, 'Above all, Calvin regarded his thought as a faithful
exposition of the leading ideas of Augustine of Hippo.' How could one
of the principal leaders of the Reformation embrace so fully the
doctrines of one who has been called 'the first real Roman Catholic'
and the 'principal theological creator of the Latin-Catholic system as
distinct from evangelical Protestantism?" (p. 51)
Augustine is a very complex
character, mainly due to his voluminous writings. Calvin quotes him
when he agrees with him and refutes him in other places. A lot of
Augustine's theology is anti RC and is actually anathematised by the RC
Council of Trent. However, it is worth noting that when it comes to
their cherished doctrine of freewill, Rome, Cloud and Hunt make
wonderful bed-fellows indeed.
"Calvinism
offers a special definition of human depravity: that depravity equals
inability -- and this special definition necessitates both
Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. There is not a verse in
the Bible, however, which presents Calvinism's radical idea that the
sinner is incapable of believing the very gospel which offers him
forgiveness and salvation and yet he is condemned by God for failing to
believe. To say that God commands men to do what they cannot do without
His grace, then withholds the grace they need and punishes them
eternally for failing to obey, is to make a mockery of God's Word, of
His mercy and love, and is to libel His character." (pp. 93, 94,
96)
This charge is easily answered.
God commands men to keep the moral law of God perfectly and eternally
condemns them for not doing so (Galatians 3:10) Does Hunt or Cloud say
that God gives grace to men to keep perfectly His law? If
so…where in the Bible does it say so? If not…is this a
mockery etc., A consistent interpretation would go a long way here.
"Why
does God waste His time and effort and the time and effort of His many
prophets pleading with those who, allegedly, cannot hear Him and who,
even if they could, being totally depraved, would never respond to His
appeal by believing and obeying Him? Why create this elaborate fiction
of mourning and weeping over multitudes who God knows will not only
refuse to repent but who, unless He regenerates them, cannot repent
because of their total inability to do so?" (p. 107)
God does not waste the time and
efforts of prophets pleading etc., with dead sinners. Through such
means, God brings His elect to life and leaves the non elect in their
sin without excuse. The effort of the soulwinner is never in vain if in
the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:58) This is not a charade…no more so
than God creating men, pleading with them, when He knows perfectly well
they won't heed it. The non Calvinist faces the same overall
problem…if indeed, it be a problem.
"Take
a human understanding of 'dead,' mix it together with the young John
Calvin's immature understanding of God's Word, tainted by Augustinian
philosophy, stir it up and out comes the theory of Total Depravity."
(p. 119)
Here
obviously we have got to differ. Sufficient to say that Calvinism alone
does justice to the fact that the sinner is actually lost. (Luke 19:10)
The Partial Depravity view suggests rather that he has just missed his
turning a little . Or to keep with the similitude: The sinner is not
really dead at all…there's life in the old man yet!
"Yes,
man is totally unable to contribute one iota to his salvation. It does
not then follow, however, that he therefore cannot receive the
salvation freely offered in Christ." (p. 121)
Man can only receive the salvation
freely offered when He is enabled to do so by the Spirit of God (1
Corinthians 12:3) To different extent, both Calvinists and non
Calvinists both agree on this. I wonder what Hunt is getting at here
and/or why Cloud thinks it is worth repeating?
"It
is clear that Calvinism rests upon a mistaken view of what it means for
God to be sovereign. The basic problem for the Calvinist is a failure
to see that God could sovereignly give to man the power of genuine
choice. Giving man the power to make a genuine, independent choice need
not diminish God's control over His universe. Being omnipotent and
omniscient, God can so arrange circumstances as to keep man's rebellion
from frustrating His purposes. In fact, God can and even does use man's
free will to help fulfill His own plans and thus be even more
glorified." (pp. 128, 129)
The Bible teaches that
[1] God is sovereign working all things after the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11)
[2] Men is absolutely free to
follow the dictates of his own heart and is totally responsible for his
actions. We believe, however, that when men follows his own heart, he
does wickedly (since the heart is desperately wicked: Jeremiah 17:9)
His will is (to quote the Bible) "free from righteousness" (Romans
6:20) This is not a problem for Calvinists at all.
"Suggesting
that God would be lacking in 'power' (and thus His sovereignty would be
denied) if He made a genuine offer of salvation, and some rejected it,
is to frame the proposition wrongly. Power has no relationship to grace
and love, which provide salvation. In fact, as we shall see, there are
many things which God cannot do, and a lack of 'power' is not the
reason for any of them, nor is His sovereignty mitigated in the least."
(p. 136)
I would
need to see the whole quote to see what Hunt is getting at here.
Suffice to say that it seems strange to say that power has no
relationship to grace and love. Are grace and love powerless then? Is
grace sovereign i.e. does it reign? (Romans 5:21) which denotes power.
Furthermore, Calvinists believe that God does make a genuine offer of
salvation and some do reject it. Failure to understand the basics of
Irresistible Grace leads our critics to think otherwise.
"There
is no escaping the fact that in Calvin's entire Institutes of the
Christian Religion there is not one mention of God's love for the
lost!" (p. 151)
No less than three quarters of Calvin's Institutes treat us to: The
Knowledge of Christ the Redeemer (Book 2) The way we receive grace from
Christ (Book 3) and The external means or aids by which God invites us
into the society of Christ and holds us therein (Book 4) I
looked up the Scripture index in my copy and I find that John 3:16 is
quoted or referred to no less than 7 times. Likewise Romans 5:8 (6
times) John 1:29 (6 times) etc., I forbear to quote more. No Escaping?
Not one mention? Hunt is either illiterate or a liar. Cloud should have
checked his facts before repeating an allegation which is untrue.
"So
once again, rather than looking to men, no matter how great their
reputations, we are driven to come to our own conclusions on the basis
of Scripture alone." (p. 162)
Amen. Calvin rightly taught: "All
who mingle their own inventions with the word of God, or who advance
anything that does not belong to it, must be rejected, how honourable
soever may be their rank." (Synoptic Gospels 2:284)
"Of
course salvation is not our doing; but that we cannot earn salvation
does not prove that we cannot freely choose to receive salvation as a
gift of God's love." (p. 182)
Actually Calvinists believe we
"freely choose to receive salvation" once our otherwise depraved and
wicked wills are renewed by divine grace and power. This enables us to
give God the glory even for the faith that saves. Something the non
Calvinist can hold unto for himself.
"The
Calvinist insists, however, that salvation cannot be conditioned upon
any act or belief on man's part This declaration is made repeatedly:
'To reject [Calvinistic] election is to reject salvation by grace and
promote salvation by works.' Yet if anything is clear in Scripture it
is the undisputable fact that faith is not work but its very
antithesis. 'By grace are ye saved, through faith not of works'
(Ephesians 2:8-9). Nothing could be clearer than the fact that, by
believing, one is doing no work. In fact, faith and work are
contrasted." (pp. 190, 191)
Actually Calvinists do believe
that salvation is conditioned upon faith. John 3:16/18/36 make this
clear. Where we differ from the non Calvinist is that we believe that
the source of salvation i.e. election is not conditional upon faith,
but rather faith is unconditional upon election hence "the faith of
God's elect" (Titus 1:l) Faith is the channel of salvation…if we make it the basis of salvation, then we turn it into a Saviour instead of Christ.
"in contrast to the literally hundreds of places where God's love is
clearly expressed for all of Israel (most of whom rejected Him) and for
the whole world (most of whom also reject Him), nowhere does the Bible
declare that God doesn't love and desire the salvation of all." (p. 206)
True. What no-one can say,
however, is that God has purposed to save every last man. If He has
then His purposes have been frustrated. I take this matter up
elsewhere.
"God's
sovereignty would no more be undermined if some accepted the offer of
salvation and others rejected it than for billions of humans
continually to disobey the Ten Commandments." (p. 206)
Hunt
here misses the point that there is a difference as far as we are
concerned between the preceptive will of God (which is revealed in the
Bible e.g. the Ten Commandments) and the secretive will of God i.e. His
hidden decrees. Failure to note this leads to all kinds of error.
"Furthermore,
would it not be a misrepresentation of the worst sort to offer
salvation to whosoever will, when in fact it was only intended for a
select few? to claim that 'all' means only a select group called the
elect does violence to the plain meaning of language and impugns the
character of God; and it does this in order to force upon the Word of
God a system of religion which cannot be derived from it." (p. 208)
The
invitations of Scripture are to be offered indiscriminately to each and
every man. A wicked heart prevents some from benefiting of it - grace
intervenes and applies it to the hearts of the elect. The sincerity of
the offer cannot be impugned by the fact that some do not avail of it.
Calvinists limit the all in the application of salvation…not in
its offer. All in the Bible often means all kinds of as opposed to all
without exception e.g. 1 Timothy 6:10
"One
of the sad features of Calvin's Institutes is the demeaning language he
continually employs (much like Luther) to vilify all who disagree with
him." (p. 233)
Looking
round a few anti Calvinist sites, I see quite a few examples of
demeaning language flowing freely from the other side. Both are to be
condemned.
"There is no way that Christ's death could be limited to paying only
for the elect's sins. To deliver even one person from eternal
punishment, no matter how few or many the sins he may have committed,
Christ had to pay the penalty demanded by His infinite justice for sin.
By very definition, then, the death of Christ on the cross paid the
penalty for sin itself which hangs over the heads of the entire human
race." (p. 251) Then
I assume that Christ died for the fallen angels who likewise sinned? Or
is His death limited only to the human race and those poor demons who
are going to be tormented forever in hell itself left in their sins?
Sounds very Calvinistic to me.
"At
times, Calvin himself seemed to be ambivalent on this subject. He made
statements both supporting unlimited atonement and at other times in
favor of limited atonement. Referring to Isaiah 53:12 he said, 'on Him
was laid the guilt of the whole world.' Concerning Mark 14:24, 'This is
my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many,' Calvin said,
'The word many does not mean a part of the world, but the whole human
race.' On 1 John 2:2, Calvin declared, 'Christ suffered for the sins of
the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men
without distinction, his blood being shed for the whole human race.'
Calvin is quoted as the authority when it suits today's Calvinists, and
at other times he is ignored. Yet this confusing doctrine [limited
atonement] upon which its adherents do not agree among themselves or
even with Calvin is still called 'Calvinism' by everyone." (p. 262,
263)
Calvin believed in a definite
atonement…something which the non Calvinist's cannot claim.
Their view of the Atonement admits of failure. The sins of the non
elect having been "taken away" (John 1:29) comes back and is punished
all over again. As Spurgeon observes, That seems to me a thousand times
more frightful than any of those horrors, which are said to be
associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of particular
redemption. (4:553) When Calvin speaks of the whole human race, he is
drawn the distinction from the Jews only and bringing in the Gentiles.
Cp. John 12:19-20
"As we shall see when we come to Perseverance of the Saints, a major
problem for Calvinists is how to be certain that one is among that
select group for whom alone Christ allegedly died. We see this
uncertainty in Calvin himself. In his will, drawn up shortly before his
death. Calvin wrote, "I humbly seek from God to be washed and purified
by the great Redeemer's blood, shed for the sins of the human
race&Mac183;' How is it that this greatest of exegetes seemed
uncertain in spite of Scripture's promise of absolute assurance: 'these
things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of
God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life&Mac183;' (1 John
5:13)? Such assurance comes not by a special revelation that one is
among the elect, but by simple faith in Christ." (p. 253)
I
don't know any Calvinist who ever claimed that we get assurance of
salvation by special revelation that we are among the elect. A little
bit of research would help Hunt's cause more and make his book less
wearisome to read. As to Calvin's will, Hunt's quote (assuming that
Cloud was fair in his editing) omits the vital word "so" and then
guillotines the last part of the sentence. Calvin wished to be "so
washed" etc., "… that I may be permitted to stand before his
tribunal in the image of the Redeemer himself." Either Hunt is
incompetent or he is willing to pervert the words of a dying saint to
further his own ends.
"Tragically, Calvinism's misrepresentation of God has caused many to
turn away from the God of the Bible as from a monster." (p.
287)
Men turn away from God because
they love their sin. Many turn away from God because they despise His
dealings with the Canaanites of old etc., Some turn away from God
because they believe the non Calvinist misrepresentations of what
Calvinism actually believes. And let's face it…Hunt hasn't done
too much to keep the record straight.
"Indeed,
just as God himself cannot force anyone to love Him (a coerced response
is the opposite of love), so it would be the very opposite of grace to
force any gift or benefit of 'grace' upon anyone who did not want to
receive it." (p. 291)
True. Since Calvinist's believe in
"Irresistible Grace" and not "Irresistible Violence" I can't quite see
the relevance of this comment.
"God
truly and powerfully works within the believer and we can do nothing
but by the leading and empowering of the Holy Spirit. At the same time,
however, we must give ourselves willingly to the work of God through
us. Most Calvinists admit this co-operative effort when it comes to
living the Christian life, but insist that there can be no such
willingness in believing the gospel and accepting Christ." (p.
298)
Another wrong statement. Although
Calvinists do believe that men are passive in regeneration, we believe
that men are most active in conversion to God. The sinner (enabled by
divine grace) repents and believes. God gives him faith etc., but does
not believe for him. It may help the reader to see that there is a
difference between regeneration and conversion. The former leads to the
latter.
Surely
the continual disobedience both of unbelievers and believers proves
that God's grace is not 'irresistible.' Nor does man's disobedience
diminish God's sovereignty in the least. Obviously, freedom of choice
itself is part of God's plan!" (p. 299)
Hunt here trips over his bootlaces
by confusing justification (as relating to the unbeliever) and
sanctification (relating to the believer) It doesn't help either that
(as above) he fails to distinguish between the preceptive will and His
decretive will of God.
"If
Paul did not want a single Jew to go to hell and was in continual agony
of soul for their salvation, willing even to be accursed of God if that
would save his 'kinsmen according to the flesh' (Romans 9:1-3), would
God, who surely put this selfless love in Paul's heart, be any less
loving and concerned for lost humanity on its way to hell? Surely not
the God of the Bible! Could Paul have been wrong in his continual agony
over the lost sheep of the house of Israel (and indeed all men), and
Calvin right in his lack of concern for the lost?" (pp. 301, 302)
Paul was rightly guided by the
word of God which teaches us to weep over souls. Romans 9:1-3/Jeremiah
9:1 etc., Christ Himself did (Luke 19:41) and so God is not unconcerned
for lost humanity and Calvinists do not claim that He is. Part of the
problem with Hunt and those of like mind is that they believe their own
propaganda. I mean, how does Hunt actually know that Calvin had no
concern for the lost? Click here for our page on Calvin the Soulwinner.
"My
firm disagreement with Calvinism is not over God's sovereignty, which I
fully embrace and to which I submit. The issue is whether God loves all
without partiality and desires all to be saved. Unquestionably,
Calvinism denies such love; but the Bible, in the clearest language
repeatedly declares God's love to all and His desire that all should be
saved and none should be lost." (pp. 301, 302)
It's maybe about time the non
Calvinists were put on the defensive. While Calvinists quite happily
say that God loves all men - elect or not - see Psalm 145:9 etc., yet
we can see that He loves some men more than others. Why has God
afforded some men in some parts of the world to hear the gospel over
and over again and yet not so arranged in His sovereignty that others
elsewhere would never hear the gospel at all? Did God love the
Canaanites with the same impartial love with which He loved the
Israelites?
"We
consider TULIP to be a libel against our loving and merciful God as He
reveals himself both in His Word and in human conscience." (p.
304)
That of course is Hunt's opinion
for which he must one day give account to God. I, on the other hand,
consider TULIP to be in essence a clear statement of the gospel. I also
will give an account of my statement.
"The
very fact that Paul, Apollos and the other early evangelists expended
so much time and energy in persuading men to believe the gospel is
completely contrary to the concept of both Total Depravity and
Irresistible Grace." (p. 324)
Not really. Many Calvinists have
expended so much time and energy in persuading men while holding very
firmly to these doctrines. Speaking for myself, it actually fuels my
evangelism when I think that it is not hit or miss when I evangelise,
but that God's word will not return unto Him void but will accomplish
the purpose whereto He has sent it (Isaiah 55:8-9)
"The
Calvinist has boldly changed 'world' to mean 'elect' in no fewer than
twenty scriptures. He has changed 'whosoever' and 'all' into 'elect' at
least sixteen times each. In addition, the phrase 'every man' has been
turned into 'elect' six times and 'everyone' into 'elect' three times.
In every instance where these changes have been made there is nothing
in the text to justify 'elect' as the meaning of the word for which it
must be substituted. The change has been made for one reason only: to
accommodate Calvinism!" (p. 332)
I wonder how Hunt interprets the "every man" in
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time
the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Did
Hitler press into the Kingdom of God? Or (whatever way we believe men
become elect) is it only the elect? It is not so clear cut as non
Calvinists would have us believe.
"No
one naturally seeks the Lord; we all seek our own selfish desires, and
no one can come to Christ except the Father draw 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 everyone
(even through the witness of creation and conscience)." (p.
339)
Although the witness of nature and
conscience leaves men without excuse (Romans 1:20/Romans 2:14) yet it
takes the actual preaching of the word of God to bring them to Christ
(Romans 10:13-17)
"Rather
than any natural brilliance, Calvin's arguments reflect a bias toward
the sacramentalism he learned as a Roman Catholic from Augustine, which
he elaborated upon and thereafter was compelled to defend. His logic
often betrays a spiritual immaturity. Incredibly, Calvin argued: 'But
if baptism was of God [referring to the Catholic infant baptism he
received as a child], it certainly included in it the promise of
forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of the
Spirit, and communion with Christ.' These astonishing statements
reflect a sacramentalism which maintains that the physical act of
baptism has spiritual power and imparts regeneration. To be baptized by
Roman Catholic priests who were not even Christians but held to and
promoted a false gospel, was perfectly acceptable to Calvin because
they used the name of God when they administered it!" (p.
341)
The issue here is with the
theology of Infant Baptism. Not Calvinism. I believe that Spurgeon was
the greatest Baptist who ever lived and he would likewise would
repudiate the theology of infant baptism...while, of course, affirming
his staunch belief in Calvinism.
"Why
doesn't God's irresistible grace that is so powerful toward sinners
create perfectly obedient lives after sinners are saved?" (p.
354)
Why indeed? Why doesn't He just
take believers to Heaven when they come to Christ? Hunt's questions are
no more an argument against irresistible grace than mine are against
eternal security.
Who
would say that man can come to God 'unassisted' by the Holy Spirit? Not
even the rankest Arminian! But Calvinism makes that false charge
against those who disagree with its extremism." (p.
369)
Our complaint is that often
Arminians (your term) only pay lip service to the work of the Spirit of
God. We deny that Calvinism is extremism.
"Moreover, it is foolish to suggest that receiving a gift means we
deserve it. A drowning man who yields himself into the hands of his
rescuer has nothing to boast about, nor has he done any work to assist
in his rescue. So it is with the lost sinner." (p.
370)
We touched on this above. Some portray their faith as if it was the
basis of their salvation and subsequently boast. Calvinists keep faith
as the channel of salvation and this helps keep it all in perspective.
"Before
beginning what turned into an urgent and in-depth study of Calvinism, I
had thought that I was at least a one-point Calvinist. Surely my belief
in eternal security, the assurance of salvation eternally in God's
presence, must be the same as Calvinism's Perseverance of the Saints.
That turned out, however, not to be the case. Why? Biblical assurance
of salvation does not depend upon one's performance but upon the
gospel's declaration that Christ died for the sins of the world and
upon His promise that whosoever believes in Him receives the gift of
eternal life. In contrast, the Calvinist's assurance is in God having
predestined him to eternal life as one of the elect -- and his
performance plays a large part in helping him to know whether or not he
is among that select group." (p. 377)
Perseverance of the Saints means
that true Christians will ultimately overcome (1 John 5:4) Our evidence
of being in Christ (i.e. our assurance) is on the basis that we have
trusted the Lord and the evidence that we have trusted Christ is our
change of heart (2 Corinthians 5:17) and good works in exactly the same
way as it is propounded in Ephesians 2:8-10 and James 2 etc., If Hunt
disagrees with this, then his problem is not with Calvinists in
particular, but evangelical Christians in genera:, for this is a common
belief.
"Doubts
even assail leading Calvinists. Zane C. Hodges points out that 'the
result of this theology is disastrous. Since, according to Puritan
belief, the genuineness of a man's faith can only be determined by the
life that follows it, assurance of salvation becomes impossible at the
moment of conversion.' And, one might add, at any time thereafter as
well, for reasons we will show. No wonder, then, as R.T. Kendall has
commented, that 'nearly all of the Puritan 'divines' went through great
doubt and despair on their deathbeds as they realized their lives did
not give perfect evidence that they were elect.' Arminius, on the other
hand, contrary to the false label attached to him by his enemies, had
perfect assurance and said that the believer can 'depart out of this
life to appear before the throne of grace, without any anxious
fear&Mac183;' Congdon writes, 'Absolute assurance of salvation is
impossible in Classical Calvinism. Since works are an inevitable
outcome of "true" salvation, one can only know he or she is saved by
the presence of good works. But since no one is perfect any assurance
is at best imperfect as well. Therefore, you may think you believed in
Jesus Christ, may think you had saving faith, but be sadly mistaken and
because unsaved, be totally blind to the fact you are
unsaved&Mac183;'" (p. 378)
Personally I would like to see the
full quote of Zane C. Hodges because (to be blunt) I trust neither Hunt
nor Cloud who endorses him. They let their editing scissors follow the
dictates of their agenda and I don't buy into that kind of mentality.
Many saints, of all persuasions, fail to have perfect peace when they
come to die and so this cannot be attributed to Calvinism. Many
Calvinists die with great assurance so the argument falls flat. It is
one thing to have works as an evidence of salvation, it is another
thing to look to them for the basis of your salvation. As a Calvinist,
I have always cautioned folk to look to the perfection of Christ alone
as their only hope of salvation. Such is standard Calvinist practice.
END OF QUOTES FROM HUNT'S BOOK
So that's it. Cloud endorses Hunt's book "What love is this?" with the following words:
"Dave
Hunt of Berean Call Ministries has written a powerful refutation of
Calvinism titled "What Love Is This?" and subtitled "Calvinism's
Misrepresentation of God." (2002, Sisters, Oregon: Loyal Publishing,
436 pages).
Hunt deals with this controversial issue in a gracious yet bold-for-the-truth manner.
He has diligently researched his topic and has made a great effort to be fair to Calvinists and to represent them accurately."
I
certainly would not let my name be associated with this book. There are
non Calvinists out there who recognise that it is but a pretty crude
hatchet job. As mentioned above, Hunt borders at times on the
ridiculous. By endorsing this book, Cloud gives us an idea of what he
means by the word fair and accurately. A standard English dictionary
would not be much use here!
One place where Cloud does stand apart is where Hunt seeks to undermine the AV rendering of Acts 13:48 (And
when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of
the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed) by twisting it to mean that those disposed to eternal life believed.
Cloud's comments on this are all revealing...even if Cloud did not intend it to be so.
Pointing out his dissatisfaction with Hunt on this issue of the KJV, Cloud writes: "In
his attempt to refute Calvinism, Brother Hunt finds it necessary (on
page 218) to claim that the King James Bible leaned on the Roman
Catholic Latin Vulgate in Acts 13:48. Acts 13:48 in the KJV reads: "And
when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of
the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Hunt
admits that it is translated similarly "in the major translations," so
we fail to understand why he finds it necessary to isolate the King
James Bible. Did all of the other major versions also lean on the
Catholic Vulgate in this passage? Hunt does not tell his readers that
English versions predating the King James Bible had the same
translation..."
We
may comment here that there is quite a lot which Hunt does not tell his
readers. He has pulled the wool over their eyes and indeed, judging
from the comments of Mr Cloud above, over his eyes also. Cloud has
swallowed Hunt's book, hook, line and sinker. It blackens Calvin and
Calvinists and is therefore fit to be employed. Cloud rightly smells a
rat in Hunt's methods when relating to the KJV. It is a pity that he
fails to smell a whole nest of them when it comes to Hunt's critique of
Calvinism which is the subject of the book itself.
Any comments may be emailed to me.
A few other helpful points regarding what Calvinists believe on the following pages:
http://www.corkfpc.com/calvinismindex.html
http://www.corkfpc.com/criticisingcalvinism.html
THE END