|
As listeners to The Dividing Line
know, a book is being written that embodies a written exchange
between myself and Dave Hunt on the subject of Reformed
theology or “Calvinism.” This book grew out of the publication
of Mr. Hunt’s What Love is This? Shortly after the book
came out I wrote an open letter exposing some of the many,
many problems with the book (click
here for this letter). This led rather quickly to the book
project that is now a little over half completed (a title for
the book has not yet been decided). It also led to the folks
at
discerningreader.com establishing
whatloveisthis.com,
which hosts articles critiquing Hunt’s book.
Over the months since the book
came out I have noted a series of letters published in The Berean Call
regarding the issue. I have spoken to a number of folks as I
have traveled who have written to Mr. Hunt and asked to have
their names removed from his mailing list. Their reasons were
all the same: What Love is This is a poorly researched,
badly argued, often shrill attack upon a straw-man caricature
of Reformed theology. Some knew that Dave had been warned,
repeatedly, by numerous persons, that he was in error in
regard to his understanding of Reformed theology and that he
just was not “listening” to what was being said to him. As a
result, many are simply disgusted that he would rail in print
at a system about which he knows little while claiming to know
more about it than most who confess it.
Just recently I logged onto
thebereancall.org to
check Dave’s traveling schedule. I was hoping to get him to
appear with me on a major radio station to discuss our
upcoming book and the issues in general. As I scanned the main
page I discovered that, as it had been pretty much since April
of 2002, the main topic was the reaction to What Love is
This? But this time the accusations were getting quite
serious. Since I have been one of the most vocal
opponents of What Love is This? I wish to take a few
moments to respond to the article by T.A. McMahon.
Storm of Controversy
It seems the folks at The Berean Call
did not realize how many of their readers were Reformed in
their theology prior to launching their attack upon Calvinism
in May of 2000. Note the words of McMahon:
In all of our years of addressing critical issues
impacting the body of Christ (from The Seduction of
Christianity to dealing with the cults to decrying
evangelical compromise with the Church of Rome to
explaining true Islam), nothing has come close to the
number and severity of mean-spirited responses we’ve
received regarding our perspective on Calvinism.
The first thing I would note is that I
find What Love is This? a very “mean-spirited” book.
Now, what do I mean by that? I find something “mean-spirited”
if it shows no concern for truth or fairness in its
representation of the views of others. Evidently, that is not
how The Berean Call interprets mean-spiritedness. In
fact, it is just this issue of how to define “mean-spirited”
that prompts my writing of this response. Note McMahon’s
words:
In many of the letters, Dave has been characterized as
a liar, a deceiver, a destroyer of the faith, and worse.
We’ve been told that he is woefully ignorant and therefore
incapable of understanding and presenting true Calvinism.
Again, the level of hostility transcends any responses to
any controversial subject we’ve ever addressed in the
past. That’s hard to fathom from those who profess to have
the gospel and the Spirit of Christ.
Now, read this citation carefully again.
You will note that for McMahon, identifying Dave Hunt’s
ignorance of the issues he has chosen to engage is on the
exact same level of mean-spiritedness as calling Hunt a
liar, deceiver, or destroyer of the faith. Of course, this is
irrational. Every one of us is ignorant of many things. Saying
I am ignorant of complex mathematical mechanisms for engaging
in the study of physical chemistry is not the same as
calling me a liar or a deceiver. That should be obvious
to anyone. And the problem with the entire response of The
Berean Call is that they are interpreting the refutation
of Hunt’s work with “mean-spiritedness.” Ironically, that is
the spirit of the age. While Hunt does not spare anyone from
his own criticisms, now “the shoe is on the other foot” so to
speak, and evidently he does not like it.
Let me be frank with everyone. While I
find Dave Hunt a personable man, and believe he speaks the
truth on many issues, I have always found his research
methodologies questionable at best, and his conclusions are
often tenuous, at least to anyone who wishes to think
critically and carefully. Many enjoy listening to his rambling
presentations, where he starts on one subject, and ends ten
subjects down the road (he has considered this a criticism: it
is a factual observation that any person who has ever
heard him speak at a conference knows is completely accurate).
But in the process he will often make statements that are
highly questionable that would never stand up in a debate. In
his various books Dave has shown a consistent ability to “see”
in a source only what he chooses to see: even when the context
militates against his own conclusions, he just doesn’t “see”
that portion of the information. This results in very skewed
writing, no matter what the subject being addressed.
Further, Dave is not a scholar. In fact,
he is proud of his lack of training in biblical languages,
historical backgrounds, etc. (and the requisite training in
the use of source materials in a proper and fair way that goes
along with those studies). His tradition eschews that kind of
study as being “elitist,” and surely that attitude resonates
with many in evangelicalism today where, due to post-modern
influences, everyone’s opinion is considered equal to everyone
else’s. While no one would think for a moment that Joe
Schuller, recent high school graduate and second-string burger
flipper at Roy’s burger shop, is in any position to offer
meaningful opinions on the proper methodology of improving the
operation of a thermonuclear reactor (i.e., his opinions are
NOT equal to those of a professional who has worked in the
field for decades), when it comes to “religion,” everyone’s
opinions are equal. This idea comes from two sources:
post-modernism, which denies there is any absolute truth in
religion anyway, and from a wrong-headed misinterpretation of
the priesthood of the believer. Joe Schuller’s opinions on the
proper hermeneutic approach to the book of Hebrews in light of
the impact of Septuagintal syntactical and lexicographical
backgrounds are not equal to those of a biblical
scholar who has studied the topic. Hopefully that is
understandable to all.
Dave Hunt admitted in our radio
encounter in the summer of 2000 that he had never read any of
the Reformers. That alone would be sufficient basis to
preclude him from writing a book on the subject. But to put
out such a book in a matter of months after making that
admission is simply irresponsible. And I say this with a clear
conscience, for I told Mr. Hunt this long before his book saw
the light of day. I, and many others, tried to reason with
Dave. We tried to explain where he was missing the entire
point of the topic. We tried to warn him he would be exposing
himself to very damaging refutation if he pressed on with this
new crusade of his. He refused our counsel. Barely three
months after our radio discussion I wrote the following
(October 23, 2000):
I would very much like to review the
book of which you speak. However, I feel it is my
responsibility to be very open in telling you honestly
that I do not believe you should publish on this topic.
The reason is simple. Given the character of the article
in your newsletter, and your direct admission that you
have not read any of the key works on this subject,
either those produced at the Reformation, since then, or
even before then (Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings, for
example), you are truly in no position to speak to the
topic. It is simply not possible to give a meaningful
rebuttal of a position that you do not understand. It
would be like my seeking to write a book on advanced
calculus: while I might, with sufficient study, be able to
do so, I could not even begin to do so given my current
level of study of the subject. I’ve never even cracked the
binding of an advanced calculus text, let alone delved
into the subject to any depth.
On the radio program we did together
a few months ago I started out by asking you how you
explained your siding with Rome on the key soteriological
battle of the Reformation, that being the conflict between
Roman synergism and Reformed monergism. You began by
admitting your ignorance of the Reformers and their
writings. Might I suggest that there is no reason to
critique a position without reading the original documents
in which the position is espoused? Surely you cannot
believe that the likes of Calvin, Beza, the crafters of
the Westminster and London Confessions, John Owen, Francis
Turretin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Haddon Spurgeon,
Charles Hodge, William Cunningham, B.B. Warfield, J.
Gresham Machen, John Murray, and modern writers such as
R.C. Sproul or John Gerstner, have never heard your
objections before, can you? And since volumes exist
responding to those very issues, how can you reiterate
them without doing the requisite work that would give you
the necessary standing to do so?
Further, please be aware that the
strength of the Reformed position is exegesis. It is not
by accident that the Puritans, for example, thorough-going
Calvinists that they were, emphasized so strongly a
knowledge of the original languages of the Bible. Their
ministers were required to be thoroughly capable of
“rightly handling the Word of truth.” It is the exegesis
of the text of Scripture that gives rise to the Reformed
faith. Arminianism, on the other hand, is a philosophical
position that arises from certain alleged philosophical
necessities. It does not come from the exegesis of
the text.
This came out clearly in our
discussion. When faced with passages such as John 6:37-39,
you immediately left the text and went elsewhere.
Arminianism has no meaningful counter-exegesis to offer to
John 6, or Romans 8, or Ephesians 1.
So I would strongly encourage you,
Dave, to refrain from attempting to address a topic that
you have already admitted is not an area of your study. I
wrote God’s Sovereign Grace and Drawn by the
Father in 1990. I wrote The Potter’s Freedom in
1998/99. I have dealt with this subject, and your
objections to it, for many years now. At the very least I
have taken the time to study the issue sufficiently well
to be able to address it fairly. I do not believe
your recent article, nor our discussion on the radio, show
that you have yet done the work necessary for the writing
of a book on the subject.
Needless to say, I did not see the
manuscript that had been offered. But I produce this now so
that any person of honesty will know that I did, in a
Christian manner, warn Dave Hunt that he was going to damage
his own reputation and that of his ministry if he did not heed
the warnings I, and others, were giving him. He did not
listen, published the book, and must now live with the
consequences, for his book contains far too many falsehoods to
be ignored. The matter now is one of God’s truth and the
service of Christ’s Church.
Suppression? Or Rejection of Bad Writing
and Research?
McMahon continues:
Another grave concern is a concerted effort to suppress
the distribution of What Love Is This? Over the
years, we’ve experienced resistance by Christian
bookstores to offer some of Dave’s titles. However, Loyal Publishing
has reported that entire chains have not only refused to
carry What Love Is This?, but some chains have
consequently refused to carry any of Loyal’s books, even
those which they previously offered. The folks at Loyal
are a small yet godly (and gutsy) group. Therefore, it
grieves us deeply that they are suffering financial
setbacks for their commitment to our Lord through what
Dave has written.
I cannot comment on whether entire
chains of bookstores have, in fact, dropped Loyal’s line, nor
whether this is because of Hunt’s attack on Calvinism.
Personally, I doubt it. Many bookstores will not carry my
books either, and mainly because the big bookstore chains are
ecumenically minded and I am not. Many bookstores are now
carrying Roman Catholic books, scapulars, rosaries, etc.,
courting the Catholic “market.” My books do not make them
enough money to warrant the danger of “offending” a portion of
their “market.” Indeed, just recently I heard a radio
advertisement for a local “Christian bookstore” where, if you
would say to the cashier “I clap for Jesus,” you’d get 10% off
your purchase. Someone who will stand in a line and look at a
cashier and say “I clap for Jesus” is not going to be picking
up a copy of The God Who Justifies or The Potter’s
Freedom anyway. I suspect the same is true here with
reference to Dave’s book.
Be that as it may, what is truly amazing
about this section of McMahon’s comments is the implicit idea,
stated openly later, that there is some “Calvinist conspiracy”
to suppress this book. Such an assertion is, at best,
humorous. Criticism of poor research and argumentation is
not suppression. Is it just barely possible that it has
become known that this book is simply bad? Might that
be part of the reason? Of course, that would be relevant to
only a small number of bookstores, in light of the fact that
most of the best-sellers are, likewise, theologically bad.
A store that hawks The Prayer of Jabez (and the six
dozen related trinkets) for a buck could really care less
whether Dave Hunt did his homework or not. So I imagine the
real reason lies elsewhere.
If Loyal had sent this manuscript to a
group of scholars and had simply asked, “Is this work solid?”
even the most Arminian of them would have informed the
publisher that it was not. I am certain (though I have not
discussed it with him) that John Sanders, a self-described
Arminian scholar, would have pointed out many of the very same
factual or logical errors I have. Did Loyal do this? I have no
idea. What I do know is that I and others can document that we
tried to help Dave Hunt by first pointing him to solid
materials and then, failing that, tried to warn him against
publishing on a topic beyond his field of study. If Hunt did
not share this with his publisher, that is between the two of
them. The folks at Loyal will be forced to confess that I have
been very up-front with them from the start regarding our own
project with them (the debate book follow-up between myself
and Dave Hunt). I informed them from the start that I still
do not believe Dave capable of engaging in serious exegetical
work on this topic. I said they may well be criticized for
putting Dave in the position of having to respond to my
exegetical presentations. I have again sought to act in the
utmost of integrity. Thus far, the folks from Loyal have been
fair in dealing with me despite the fact that I am obviously
one of the most vocal critics of Hunt’s book.
There is surely no reason at all to not
carry other Loyal books just because one discovers that Hunt’s
book is as bad as it is. That attitude would be far too
simplistic to commend itself. But, of course, publishing
houses realize that when you publish a really “bad” book, it
can mark you for quite some time, whether that is fair to your
other projects or not.
McMahon continued:
TBC has also been hit by a decline in donations, which
we are trying to offset by cutbacks in some of our
outreach programs, particularly radio.
Again, as one who tried to warn Mr.
Hunt, I can only say that this is what happens when you engage
in a crusade without doing your homework. Perhaps Dave did not
realize that Reformed folks would make up a large percentage
of those interested in apologetics. I cannot understand how he
would be unaware of this fact, but it seems he was. In any
case, it should be remembered that the content of What Love
is This? is not only bad on the level of argumentation and
research, it is bad on the level of rhetoric and harshness.
Dave has never been content to simply say, “X is wrong.” It is
his way to say “X is wrong, silly, and dumb; and if you
believe X, you are not only losing your mind, you are on a
bobsled to hell as well.” Recognition of this element of
Hunt’s writing, and how people will respond to it, is missing
from McMahon’s thinking. It is as if Hunt produced this
innocuous work that basically just tried to offer a different
way of looking at things and the Calvinists have gone nuts.
Such is simply not the case. What Love is This?
presents no positive case for its own assumed position (which
is derived from Hunt’s tradition). From front to back it is a
non-stop exercise in rhetorical negativity that often
approaches the level of “shrill.” And someone is surprised
that those it (falsely) skewers might withdraw their support
of TBC?
Search the Scriptures?
Certainly not all Calvinists would condone the
treatment we’ve been receiving and a few have written us
to that effect. Yet we are astonished at the animosity
prevalent in the majority of their responses. Moreover,
since Calvinists account for a small percentage of
evangelicals, it’s troubling to see how much power and
influence they have in the evangelical community,
especially when opposing something which is critical of
their theology. Why can’t such important issues be brought
before the church and every believer be encouraged to
search the Scriptures to see which teachings are true to
God’s Word?
I’m not sure about anyone else, but it
sounds like that paragraph is asserting that these
unnamed, animosity-filled Calvinists are using their “power
and influence” to suppress Dave’s book because they do not
want these issues examined “before the church.” If that is, in
fact, what is being asserted, I must point out that such is
simply ridiculous. Indeed, the common element of the letters
that have been published in The Berean Call has been
“You are attacking a straw man” not “We need to keep your
insightful arguments away from people!”
We have invited Dave Hunt to debate this
topic in public before video cameras a number of times. Mr.
Hunt has always said he would do so, but so far, we have
failed to establish a date. Obviously, from our perspective,
it would be very wise to schedule a debate for the time period
immediately after the completion of our current book project.
A video tape/book combination would be the perfect fulfillment
of the final quoted sentence, for it would be the best way to
bring “before the church and every believer” these issues so
that they would be encouraged to “search the Scriptures to see
which teachings are true to God’s Word.” Since some believers
prefer to read, they would gravitate toward the book; since
others find the give and take of debate more useful in
determining who is speaking the truth, they would look toward
the video tape of the debate. In either case, we have invited
Dave to do a Friday night/Saturday debate comprising sections
that would allow us to focus upon each of the central issues.
We continue to stand ready to engage in this debate as soon as
this book project is completed which could be in a relatively
short period of time. More than one church has expressed
interest in holding such a debate, so finding a forum would
not be difficult to do.
Further, if Dave would prefer to be
joined by others, such as Mr. McMahon, or others, that would
be fine. I prefer to debate alone, but would not mind debating
two or three or more on the other side. As long as the time
frames are equal and there is plenty of direct, open,
meaningful cross-examination, I’m sure a framework could be
worked out.
Conclusion
The comments made in McMahon’s
article leave the impression that unChristlike “Calvinists”
are on the rampage, seeking to destroy TBC and suppress
What Love Is This? Unfortunately, Dave Hunt’s response
to my own open letter proves that what they mean by
“mean-spiritedness” is in reality nothing more than the
factual exposure of the errors that fill Hunt’s work.
Remember, after reading my lengthy open letter, which is
filled with citation after citation, Dave Hunt actually
asserted that I had not provided any examples to back up my
allegations! This kind of response has puzzled many a person
who has read both sides, and lead many to conclude that Mr.
Hunt is simply not willing to deal with the facts. But in any
case, it is not mean-spirited to say “Dave Hunt’s book is
really bad, and here is why….” Only if we care little for
truth would we even think in such a fashion.
I would imagine TBC can produce
some less-than-kind letters from people who call themselves
“Calvinists.” Believe me, Alpha and Omega Ministries
can produce quite a pile of nasty e-mails from Dave
Hunt’s fans. Shortly after I first critiqued Hunt’s work one
such man landed on top of me with all fours, and even posted
nasty reviews at amazon.com just for the fun of it. There is
no shortage to folks who are not overly nice on a personal
level. Any Calvinist who has gone beyond the correction of
factual and logical errors and engaged in vituperative insults
should be rebuked. But in the very same way, painting the vast
majority of Reformed believers the way Dave Hunt does in
What Love is This? and as T.A. McMahon does in this main
page article is just as wrong.
Let’s lay aside such issues and
get back to what is truly important to the church: does the
Bible teach monergism or synergism? It is a vital issue. It impacts our
view of God, the gospel, ourselves, the church, and the means
and purposes of evangelism. That is why we take such a strong
stand on the topic. It is not mean-spirited to speak the
truth: it is mean-spirited to God to consider His truth less
important than the “feelings” of those who have a strong
attachment to their traditions and might be “offended” by the
exposure of their errors.
James White
|
