# Dave Hunt: Calvinists Aren't Saved



## Pilgrim (Sep 26, 2005)

That is, unless they were converted under non-Calvinist ministry first. Those who were converted and then "converted" to Calvinism will be ultimately judged for teaching heresy and maligning God. That's the gist of a Q & A in this month's Berean Call, portions of which I post 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?



Here's the conclusion to Hunt's lengthy answer: 



> 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.*




No wonder Hunt is now PNG with all major Christian publishers, considering this reasoning. I don't think any of the most vociferous critics of Calvinism among the SBC leadership would countenance this. It's something you'd expect to see from some of the most extreme participants in the Baptist Fire forum. The only thing that keeps Hunt from being 4 point Arminianism's answer to Outside the Camp is that he hasn't yet said that anyone who thinks that Calvinists are saved are also damned. But given OSAS, that wouldn't be possible, so I would submit that Hunt's position is about as extreme as it could possibly be considering his theological framework. 

I suppose those who walk the aisle, "accept" Christ" and then later join the Church of Satan will also be saved, but simply judged for their apostasy and blasphemy. That's the logical conclusion of Hunt's thought here. 

Question for the board: Has Hunt been saying this all along, that Calvinists aren't saved? Once he loosed his first nonsensical broadside against Calvinism in the Berean Call about 4 years ago("What A Soveriegn God Cannot Do"), I quit paying attention. Just by reading this, it's clear that James White is right on the money in saying that Hunt doesn't understand Calvinism at all and is attacking a Hyper-Calvinist straw man. Has he even read the WCF? It's this kind of thinking that leads him to argue that Spurgeon wasn't a Calvinist 

BTW I was actually converted from blasphemy and denying the deity of Christ by reading a couple of Hunt's books on occultism and Romanism.  God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.....

After years of studying and agonizing, the young Spurgeon was finally converted in a Primitive Methodist chapel, being exhorted by a lay preacher to "look and live!". He went back the next week and heard a message arguing the wrong view of Romans 7 and decided he couldn't go back. 

This month's issue has prompted me to finally cancel my subscription to the Berean Call. They do still offer helpful critiques of seeker sensitive/Purpose Driven ministry, psychology, occult/New Age influence in the church, ECT, etc, when they find time to get off their Calvinist-bashing hobby horse, but better and more thorough critiques can be had elsewhere. Actually my cancellation helps them since they send the newsletter out free of charge.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Sep 26, 2005)

He's a loon. 

Waiting for the blog world to explode on this one......


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 26, 2005)

Is this surprising?


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 26, 2005)

Did someone say Dave Hunt? Read my review of _Debating Calvinism_ on Amazon...

I have nothing else to say about the man who tosses out slander and bad theology.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 26, 2005)

I received the email version around the beginning of the month, but as usual didn't read it. I received the print version in the mail today and I'm not sure what prompted me to read it, other than curiosity. 

I don't know that the blog world will necessarily explode unless Hunt indeed goes further here than he has previously. I'm thinking that the question was prompted by some suggestion Hunt made in the past that those who have only ever believed the "Calvinist gospel" are unsaved.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Is this surprising?



Well, like I said, I quit paying attention after the first Berean Call attack on Calvinism that preceded publication of "What Love is This", which I never bothered to purchase or read. 

I didn't know that Hunt had ever gone so far as to say Calvinists aren't saved, but I really haven't been tuned in to the debate.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 26, 2005)

Isn't it ironic that the the arminians are calling _us_ unregenerate?

Thought the Synod of Dort settled that issue.


----------



## Presbyrino (Sep 26, 2005)




----------



## Poimen (Sep 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Isn't it ironic that the the arminians are calling _us_ unregenerate?
> 
> Thought the Synod of Dort settled that issue.



Well if regeneration happens after a person makes a decision for Christ then surely those of us who were brought up in Calvinist homes (me for example) have never been regenerate.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



That's Hunt's argument.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 26, 2005)

See this thread


----------



## Average Joey (Sep 26, 2005)

Dave hunt surely is bitter from all those debates he lost.This is his way of getting some cheap shots in to those who have beaten him in debates.


----------



## srhoades (Sep 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> It's this kind of thinking that leads him to argue that Spurgeon wasn't a Calvinist



I'm new here so if this has been rehashed before you can just point me to that thread. So here it goes.

I can not for the life of me understand how anyone who has read Spurgeon even marginally can say that he was not a Calvinist. My mom bought the 4 volume set of his sermons for me for Christmas. After reading just 10 sermons his stance on Calvinism and the sovereignty of God is blatantly obvious. 

After being told by some Arminians that "Oh, we like Spurgeon" I can only conclude the following.

1) They have never read Spurgeon and are just name dropping

2)They have read Spurgeon and are just being (incredibly) intellectually dishonest

3)They are liars

Did he not take the position that only from an understanding of Calvinsim that one could be saved, and now Dave Hunt is turning that around? Am I missing something here??


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 26, 2005)

I think Hunt is worse on innerancy than Wright. He concocted a fictitous "hebrew original" of Acts so that he could get around Acts 13:48.


----------



## john_Mark (Sep 26, 2005)

http://reformatabaptista.blogspot.com/2005/09/thanks-dave-hunt-glad-i-was-calvinist_26.html


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 26, 2005)

It says I don't have permission to view site.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 26, 2005)

NM, got it


----------



## heartoflesh (Sep 27, 2005)

I still receive the Berean Call newsletter in the mail, and I couldn't believe this one. I seriously think Hunt has some kind of mental health issue going on. What was really appalling were his statements about Calvinists believing in baptismal regeneration, and his ad hominem slurs regarding Calvin and (Servetus??). I quickly threw the newsletter into the recycle bin, but I should have kept it as the grandest example of strawman reasoning I've ever seen.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> I still receive the Berean Call newsletter in the mail, and I couldn't believe this one. I seriously think Hunt has some kind of mental health issue going on. What was really appalling were his statements about Calvinists believing in baptismal regeneration, and his ad hominem slurs regarding Calvin and (Servetus??). I quickly threw the newsletter into the recycle bin, but I should have kept it as the grandest example of strawman reasoning I've ever seen.



It's about as bad as I've ever seen. With this vicious, ill-informed attack, he's basically destroyed his ministry, at least among Calvinists (also among non-Calvinists who realize Hunt's off base here) some of whom were once among his biggest supporters. Some, no doubt, will probably think all of his writings are equally baseless, which isn't the case. Because of the attacks he's come under by Calvinists, Hunt erroneously draws parallels to the furor over "The Seduction of Christianity". 

Several prominent evangelical leaders lauded Hunt's book. I wonder if they actually read it? His usual publisher, Harvest House, would not publish it and he couldn't get any other major publisher to pick it up. Of course, he blames this on Calvinist influence. Actually he should be thankful to James White for doing "Debating Calvinism", which gave Hunt further exposure (albeit negative) that he otherwise likely wouldn't have gotten.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> *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.*



Thank goodness I chose Christ in a synergistic church before being forced (against my will, I might add) to embrace Calvinism. At least I only have to face a little bit of God's anger rather than all of His wrath like you Presbyterians!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 27, 2005)

This actually did surprise me. I had read his _What Love Is This?_ when it was first released, and though he attacked a caricature there as well, he really did not go this far, and I actually still gave him more credit in my mind than I do now.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 27, 2005)

Well, I said that's all I have to say-- but one recurring thing that will-worshipping Arminians like Dave Hunt love to do... is try and throw monkeywrenches in soteriological debates by claiming that Calvin or Spurgeon did not believe in limited atonement or more aptly particular redemption. There is clearly a general calling to proclaim the Gospel to all, and most all Calvinists proclaim it-- it's not as if we have an electometer to single out the elect or any cognizance of who will be saved. Time and time again, they rehash this non-sense as if they've finally caught us doctrines of grace adherants off guard and found our achilles' heel.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0241.htm


----------



## CalsFarmer (Sep 27, 2005)

Dave Hunt has been drinking the Kool Aid AND taking the red pill..or is it the blue pill?


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> There is clearly a general calling to proclaim the Gospel to all, and most all Calvinists proclaim it-- it's not as if we have an electometer to single out the elect or any cognizance of who will be saved.



Oh, man! And ever since I became a Calvinist I've been waiting to see the big "E" on someone's back before I shared the gospel! Do you mean I'm wrong on this?

Seriously, I read the first chapter of What Love is This before I threw it down in disgust. Hunt has failed to realize that with modern technology, we can go back and actually read his quotations in context. He did a terrible job misrepresenting Spurgeon. He badly debated White. But, I don't remember hearing him ever go this far....until now.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 27, 2005)

Perhaps we should pray for him instead of being angry at him. I know, that is a very easy thing to do but it seems to me that he really has a stumbling block in his heart that could be removed by God's grace.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 27, 2005)

Spurgeon said that if God had painted a yellow stripe down the back of each of the elect, he would run up and down the streets of London, lifting up shirttails, and preaching the gospel to the elect. But, Spurgeon reminds us, God has not done so. Instead He has commanded us to "preach the gospel to every creature." We must urgently appeal to everyone to come to Christ.
:bigsmile:

This still cracks me up to this day.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 27, 2005)

Let's be biblical about this - Hunt is defamating the Gospel, and will be damned if he continues to teach the Anti-Christian heresy of Arminianism. He at least understands that either we or him will go to hell for our Gospel views. Unfortunately for him, he is not clever enough to pick up an historical theology book and read it to find out that his views were propagated by condemned heretics (Pelagius and Arminius and other liberal heterodox). If he took but a moment to do that, it should cause any rational thinking person to pause and wonder why only heretics in history believed his same views. As Edwards and Owen said, Arminianism is evil and darkness, the pelagian idol, heterodoxy, free-will's deformed darling and a anti-Christian.


----------



## heartoflesh (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Perhaps we should pray for him instead of being angry at him. I know, that is a very easy thing to do but it seems to me that he really has a stumbling block in his heart that could be removed by God's grace.



It may be a pride issue with Hunt. Maybe he knows he's in the wrong, but he's carried this on for so long that he feels he can't turn back. This would explain his steadfast refusal to confront his faulty exegesis.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## Redeemed (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Is this surprising?



Yes it is surprising because the thought is patently offensive & the reasoning is poor.
I pray the Lord open his understanding and draw him out of his position.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 27, 2005)

Well, I will say that Hunt has an appreciation for sola scriptura and for the sufficiency of scripture. It was his stance in this area that helped lead to my conversion from sort of a gnostic blasphemer who denied the deity of Christ and believed the Bible was badly translated and/or had been corrupted. Are there far better Reformed writers in this area? Undoubtedly. But it was Hunt's writings that God used to draw me to himself and his Word. Just prior to that, I was also somewhat favorably disposed to Romanism (largely b/c they weren't "literalistic" and they were more conservative than the liberal church I grew up in), but his "A Woman Rides the Beast" disabused me of that once and for all. I haven't looked at it since 1999, so I don't know what I would think of it at this point. I was also sort of into sensationalism at the time, (probably the fruit of being an avid talk radio listener) so I think Hunt's work appealed to me on that level the way that someone else's would not have at that time. Hunt also debunked a lot of the Y2k hysteria. Of course, one of his reasons was that it didn't fit into his end times chart. But the other major reason was his experience in the corporate world. 

Now, his soteriology (and eschatology), that's another thing altogether... What's even worse is his unwillingness and/or inability to admit his error in not doing any real research. His continued misrepresentation of Calvinism is inexcusable on any level. With his statement that Calvinists aren't saved, he's veered into fanaticism and extremism. I'm not someone who says that Arminians aren't or can't be saved, but Hunt would seem dangerously close to the judgment and damnation he heaps upon Calvinists in this issue. 

Josh, I don't think anything I wrote above defends Hunt's theology, per se, but if it's unacceptable, you can delete it. It is precisely because Hunt is somewhat strong in some areas (compared to typical evanjellyfish) that many who are ignorant are led astray into thinking he's right on Calvinism. 

Likewise, basically all cults and false religions have some element of truth in them (although not salvific truth), otherwise no one would believe them.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by Pilgrim]


----------



## srhoades (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Well, I will say that Hunt has an appreciation for sola scriptura and for the sufficiency of scripture.
> 
> Now, his soteriology (and eschatology), that's another thing altogether...
> [Edited on 9-28-2005 by Pilgrim]



Is that even logically possible? Can you affirm the sufficiency of scripture in what is says concerning man, and then talk out of the other side of your mouth on how it is that a man is justified?

I think Hunt is far more guilty that just exercising bad hermeneutics.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 28, 2005)

I say that Dave Hunt is not saved because not only does he vehemently deny sovereign grace, but anathematizes those who do! 
He must turn, or he will burn.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> I say that Dave Hunt is not saved because not only does he vehemently deny sovereign grace, but anathematizes those who do!
> He must turn, or he will burn.


----------



## tdowns (Sep 28, 2005)

*What is mainstream stance on him?*

It seems I remember Macarther having him at his church, I think it was due to the Women rides the beast book, several years ago, have men like Macarther come out against Hunt? I know he's pumped up in Calvary Chapel circles, but that's to be expected.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 28, 2005)

Didn't Hunt predict the end of the world a few decades back (and was wrong)? If so, he's clearly a false teacher and a heretic.


----------



## heartoflesh (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> It seems I remember Macarther having him at his church, I think it was due to the Women rides the beast book, several years ago, have men like Macarther come out against Hunt? I know he's pumped up in Calvary Chapel circles, but that's to be expected.



Now THAT suprises me. I would think MacArthur would know better. Then again, he also believes wine in the Bible was NA so the guy's not perfect.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by srhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...




I think it is pretty clear from my posts that I think Hunt is guilty of far more than exercising bad hermeneutics.


----------



## Here2learn (Sep 29, 2005)

I'm sure glad I'm here with you folks! The Lord has brought me to faith with the teachings of the reformers. The outside world, well the modern church has been beating the doors down trying to discredit the teachings and the men as false and corrupt. Everywhere I turn this stuff is following me or someone is trying to save me from false teachings of Calvin and others. Anyway I'm going to make myself at home here and continue my studies.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> He concocted a fictitous "hebrew original" of Acts so that he could get around Acts 13:48.


----------

