|
Book Review A Review: 'What Love Is This?' Did Calvin Misrepresent God? By John Barber May 13, 2002 A major focus of the
book is Hunt's examination of the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP). PCANews - REVIEW OF DAVE HUNT’S WHAT
LOVE IS THIS? Reviewed by
John Barber Dave Hunt’s new book, What Love is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God,
turns this prolific author’s attention to Lutherans, Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, Reformed Baptists — all those who embrace the biblical
“doctrines of grace,” revived during the period of the Reformation and the
birth of the Protestant church. Discerning
Hunt’s thesis is made somewhat difficult by the fact that the author does not
state it in so many words. Thankfully, I had insight into Hunt’s thesis
because Dr. Tim LaHaye (who penned the book’s foreword) wrote to me and
described Hunt’s underlying theory about Calvinism, the doctrine of election
in particular. LaHaye concisely wrote, “Dave Hunt…proves Calvinism is not a
Protestant doctrine, but is based in Greek fatalism brought into the Church
in the fifth century by Augustine, paving the way for the Catholic doctrine
of predestination that all but destroyed Christianity and then was picked up
by Calvin and presented as Reformed theology.” The
closest Hunt comes to expressing LaHaye’s summation is in the beginning of
Chapter 3, titled “John Calvin and His Institutes.” He says: In 386,
after studies in philosophy, law and the classics (he was greatly inspired by
Plato), a year of teaching grammar and a career as a rhetorician, Augustine
embraced Christianity, entered the Roman Catholic Church, and established a
monastery which he moved to Hippo, Africa upon being appointed its bishop.
Often called the father of Roman Catholicism’s major doctrines, as we shall
see, Augustine heavily influenced later philosophers and even exerts a strong
influence among evangelicals today through Calvinism (p. 23).
Hunt echoes his view in Chapter 4, where he observes, “Augustine was one of
the first to place the authority of tradition on a level with the Bible and
to introduce much philosophy, especially Platonism, into his theology” (p.
48). Hunt’s
assumption is that the heart of Calvinism, more generally known as Reformed
Theology, is really modified Greek fatalism. This is immediately challenged
by the fact that the only fatalists among ancient Greek philosophers were the
Stoics, a group with no influence upon the Reformers because, among many
differences, they were pantheists[1][1].
Their god was not a personal being,
nor did he express the compassion that Calvin believed God embodied. On the
contrary, the predominant thought among the Greeks, Plato in particular, was
that of libertarian-indeterminate free
will (e.g. Plato’s Receptacle, Anaximander’s Apeiron, and
Aristotle’s Prime Matter). Ironically, the leading view of Greek thought is
far closer to Hunt’s theology! Thus, this first critique of Calvinism, while
well targeted, is ineffectual. The author
seeks to further discredit Calvinism by pointing out that because John Calvin
was only twenty-four when He penned The
Institutes of the Christian Religion, the Holy Spirit could not have
played a major role in his writings. Why? Because at such a tender age young John
was too “spiritually immature” to follow the Spirit’s leading. Thus, Hunt
reasons, Calvin must have taken his classical education in philosophy and
law, mixed it with the religious tenets of Roman Catholicism, and created his
Reformed theology. “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” (p. 31). And elsewhere he writes, “Much
of his [Calvin’s] teaching is warmed over Roman Catholicism” (p. 27). As for the
specific claim that much of Calvinism is “warmed over Roman Catholicism” this
would represent a powerful blow to Reformed theology if true, but the author
provides no credible support for his claim. Instead, the reader is presented
with a long string of ad hominem, question-begging, and guilt by
association arguments. Hunt apparently hopes that these logical fallacies
will, if repeated enough, discredit Calvinism. For example, Hunt offers a
quote from Calvin referring to the Church as “Mother,” and then points out
that, “The only church called ‘mother’ is the MOTHER OF HARLOTS (Revelation
17:5), the false church headquartered at the Vatican” (p. 27). Hunt also
wants to be sure that Calvin’s upbringing within a “devoutly religious Roman
Catholic family” is not lost on the reader, the inference being that a swatch
cut from the cloth never loses its pattern.
Hunt continues to stretch for more proof that much of Calvinism is “warmed
over Roman Catholicism” when he asserts that Calvin borrowed from Rome a form
of church government that included “a clergy with special powers.” Of course,
the “clergy” Hunt refers to, and which Calvin supported, is nothing more than
the presence of ordained pastors in the church. Non-Calvinist clergy might
wonder if, by this standard, they too are not somehow guilty of harboring
hidden affections for Rome.
Critical to Hunt’s effort to brand Calvinism as an extension of Roman
Catholicism[2][2]
is the documentation he provides in Chapter 3 of Augustine’s influence over
Calvin’s writings in the Institutes of
the Christian Religion. Hunt’s theory is that Calvin agreed with
Augustine at certain points; Augustine was a Roman Catholic; therefore, this
is proof that much of Calvinism is “warmed over Roman Catholicism.” But this
logical fallacy of association neither proves nor disproves Hunt’s thesis.
It’s just another example of his disassociation with logic.
Chapter 4, slyly titled, “Calvinism’s Surprising Catholic Connection,”
continues this guilt-by-association line of thinking. It is at this point I
wanted to ask Dr. Hunt a few questions.
For instance, I wonder if Dr. Hunt is unaware that everyone who lived in Western Europe
during the early sixteenth century was somehow connected to the Roman
Catholic Church? That it is virtually impossible to trace the religious
affiliation of any reputable European family living during this time without
somehow encountering a link to Rome? Whatever his answer might be, the
distinction between a good argument and the logical fallacy of ad hominem
(circumstantial) seems to be completely lost on Dr. Hunt.
A further use of ad hominem (this time, the abusive form) to build his
case is seen in Hunt’s questioning of Calvin’s salvation. “We have no clear
testimony in Calvin’s own words concerning his salvation” (p. 30). The author
seeks to lend further support to this notion by pointing out that as late as
June of 1533, Calvin helped a young woman enter a nunnery (p. 30). Hunt’s
apparent hope is that the reader will join him in viewing such an act as pure
sacrilege, one that a true Christian could not possibly commit.
One of more stunning, a-historical areas of this book is Hunt’s description
of Calvin in his role as reformer of Geneva, Switzerland. Hunt imputes to the
reformer’s tenure there as a time of outright tyranny. “With dictatorial
control over the populace (‘he ruled as few sovereigns have done’), he
imposed his brand of Christianity upon the citizenry with floggings,
imprisonments, banishments, and burnings at the stake’” (p. 68). By the time
Hunt is through, the reader is left with the impression that the reformer was
a mix of Genghis Kahn, Hitler, and Mao — a despot so ruthless that his
campaign of terror left him waist-deep in the blood of the martyrs. Even a
brief reading the available writings and histories of that time contradict
such a harsh view.[3][3]
It is true that Calvin and Farel’s first effort to reconstruct Geneva using
scriptural dictums failed to gain popular support and resulted in their
expulsion from the city. It is also true that by 1540 a new crop of city
officials in Geneva invited Calvin back
to the city. But what Hunt fails to mention is that as soon as he arrived,
Calvin set about revolutionizing Genevan society, with the result that the
city soon became the most prominent Protestant center of Europe during the
sixteenth century. If Calvin were a feared autocrat, why did Geneva’s leaders
ask him back? And why did the people of Geneva not riot in an effort to keep
him out?
Hunt’s critique takes an odd direction when he attacks Christian social
activists today, claiming that they “take Calvin’s Geneva as their model and
thus hope to Christianize the United States and then the world.” And that
“many Christian activists of looser attachment to Calvin hope in their own
way, through protest marches and the organizing of large enough voting
blocks, to force an ungodly American citizenry into godly living. No one ever
worked so hard at attempting to do this and for so long a time as Calvin” (p.
66). I would hope that the socially active Arminians who support such groups
as Focus on the Family and Concerned Women of America take
appropriate offense at this statement.
But no area of Hunt’s blistering rebuff of Calvinism hurts his case more than
the misleading statements regarding Calvin’s personal beliefs. Here is one
example that contains three misleading statements. “Certainly Calvin’s
retention of sacramentalism, baptismal regeneration for infants, and honoring
the Roman Catholic priesthood as valid, is a more serious embrace of
Catholicism’s false gospel than is a rejection of Calvinism” (p. 51). Suffice
it to say that neither did John Calvin retain the Roman position on these
doctrines, nor have any in the Reformed camp accepted the Roman position on
these points. Looking at these errors as generously as possible, perhaps this
is simply a slanderous oversimplification: Hunt believes you are either an
Anabaptist or a Romanist. But regardless of the root of his error, it is
entirely false.
A major focus of the book is Hunt’s examination of the Five Points of
Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P). Using the doctrine of Total Depravity as an example,
the author states in no uncertain terms that sinners are not completely dead in their sins (pgs.144-145). His proof is to
insist that it is folly to analogize the spiritually dead with the physically
dead as many do (such as the Apostle Paul), because just as physically dead
people cannot choose God, neither can they choose sin. First, it is not folly
because the Apostle Paul said it rather clearly (Ephesians 2:1). Second, Dr.
Hunt presses the analogy out of shape so that spiritual deadness is redefined
as moral inactivity. This is not the meaning of the term in Paul’s writings
or in Reformed theology. Finally, the spiritually blindness (Luke 23:34; John
9) that accompanies our lost condition is also curiously different from
physical blindness, but that does not mean the analogy is false. Despite the book’s many negative
traits, a benefit of this particular section of the volume is its orderly and
detailed handling of biblical texts, which, either explicitly or implicitly,
speak to the relationship of God’s sovereignty with human free will in
salvation. Hunt seeks to lay waste to the notion that the Bible contains a
single verse in support of even one of the Five Points of Calvinism.
Consequently, the reader is exposed to an extraordinarily complete, modern
treatment of the classic Arminian view of Christianity. Because the author
has had many years to savor and defend the issue, the reader is introduced to
one of the more comprehensive responses to the Calvinistic view of salvation
this reviewer has seen.
On the other hand, Hunt’s penchant for offering simple explanations of texts
that appear to favor the Arminian position, while offering far too “ingenious” interpretations of texts that are
partial to the Calvinist position, makes more than a little obvious that the
author had determined early what the research needed to prove. In an effort
to support his view of a universal atonement, Hunt inconsistently insists on
wooden reading of Peter’s sermon. “How could Peter say to thousands of Jews
gathered on Pentecost, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you…”
(Acts 2:28), if Christ had not died for each one of them?” (p. 325). On the
other hand, when faced with John 6:44, where Jesus declares, “No one can come
to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him,” Hunt, is apparently unable to
follow his own hermeneutic. “He [Jesus] could not have taught it
[irresistible drawing] because it would not have been in harmony with the
rest of His Word.” And “Nor is it [irresistible drawing] obvious from the
text. Of course, it is the only one which fits Calvinism...” (p. 444-445).
The constant theme that runs throughout the book is that, from the outset, Calvinism’s
view of election, and attending doctrines, is wrong because a loving and
gracious God would not affect salvation for a select few without affecting it
for everyone. But it is evident that what Hunt really means is that such an
act is unfair and unthinkable from a purely human, emotional perspective. In fact, throughout the work, the
author consistently appeals to a purely anthropomorphic framework in his
interpretation of key passages of Scripture regarding what he thinks God
would, or would not do, for the lost. While Hunt assails Calvinism for
introducing pagan ideas into Christianity, Hunt’s man-centered, emotionally
driven hermeneutic, represents the very heart of pagan thought. It is these
presuppositions that make his critique of Calvinism fall far short of God’s
glory.
In conclusion, permit me to say that there is one way in which this book can
be helpful to Calvinists. Going back to Dr. LaHaye’s clarifying letter, he
mentioned that his willingness to write the book’s foreword was largely
motivated by the fact that he considers the doctrine of predestination to be
the “death knell for evangelism.” While I am the first to admit that Reformed
churches have not always been the strongest in evangelism, it is only the
twisting of Scriptures known as Hyper-Calvinism that says, “Mr. Carey, if God
wants to convert the heathen, he can do it without your help.” This is the true death knell to evangelism, and
Calvinists have sometimes had a hard time understanding the fact that God
does not predestine ends without also predetermining the means (evangelism).
Thus, Calvinists would do well to ask themselves if there is not at least a
grain of truth in this particular observation. But at the same time, we must
be careful to add that this deficiency, where it is found in our churches,
cannot be blamed on the doctrine of election, as such. Typically, a lack of
evangelistic fervor among Reformed Christians stems from; (1) a misunderstanding of election; (2)
intellectualism coupled with a traditionalist system of priorities; (3) a
kind of elitism that refuses to express the gospel on the level of ordinary
people; (4) apathy, the same problem many Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of
God, and other churches face. Conversely, LaHaye and Hunt and all those that criticize
Calvinism as being at conflict with evangelism would do well to observe the
powerful, evangelistic ministries of notable Calvinistic preachers who have
managed to avoid the above obstacles. C. H. Spurgeon, George Whitefield, and
the notable Jonathan Edwards, the great intellectual light of the 18th
century, considered by many to be the most influential figure of the First
Great Awakening in America. Edwards was a thoroughgoing Calvinist who
supplied the major apologetic, and indeed some of the more memorable sermons,
for this revival of religion.
Theologically, Edwards was highly indebted to both Augustine and Calvin for
his description of Divine election, total depravity, and man’s need for the
all-sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Edwards’ acceptance of these doctrines
did not cause him to entrust the salvation of the lost to God without regard
for evangelism. Quite the opposite, these truths only served to heighten his
appreciation of the fact that the root of human sinfulness is a deep-seated
antagonism toward God so great and firmly imbedded in the heart of man, that
only the power of God can change it. And if only God can change it, then only
the preached Word, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, can serve as the catalyst.
This is the heart and soul of evangelism. Edward’s example helps us see that
the doctrines of grace, rather than being the death knell to evangelism,
serve as the soil from which grows a unique biblical passion for revival and
reformation. ============ John Barber is author of Earth Restored: Calling The Church To A New
Christian Activism (Christian
Focus Publications, 2002). For
more articles like this go to PCANews. |
