OPEN LETTER TO DAVE HUNT
By: Daviel D’Paz
Tulsa, OK. December 31, 2005
Dear Dave:
I just received your TBC December Newsletter and I am shocked by what you have written in the Q and A section.
First of all, I want to do something that you have commanded us to do as a Bereans. You often say in speeching and writings that your duty as a Berean is to always check someone doctrines and teachings against the Bible and that we ought to do the same, even with your own teachings and writings. Well, I want to take that advise seriously and I assume that you also said this seriously and that you really meant it to be like that.
I want to point out and let you know at the outset that what you wrote in your December Newsletter IS NOT KIND of your part to say the least, and it is NOT TRUE if we are to be honest. I am referring to the answer that you gave to the person who asked you about “Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved?” referring to what you wrote in your September Newsletter. The answer and explanation that you give about it, is very troublesome and deserves a close examination and if you are found guilty of misrepresentation you will also deserve a rebuke for doing that. That is our duty as a Bereans, isn’t?
I have been following very closely the debates over Calvinism since your first interview and discussion on the subject with James White in Radio talk Alive. I have listened to your debates again and again over the subject of Calvinism with James White, Joseph Pipa and the other two brothers of the Reformed Faith in California, trying to find a solid defense of the side that you have been representing. Because I did not consider myself a Calvinist I wanted to know the reasons why Calvinism is not considered a biblical teaching. To my surprise, the defense that you have been presenting of the opposite side of Calvinism (which is Arminianism), is not even consistent.
If there is something commendable in your attacks on Calvinism is that you made this subject more appealing to the average person who is not an expert in Theology. And I personally thank God and I want to thank you also because if you would never address this subject, maybe I would never find out what really is at the heart of the Gospel of Grace. Your attacks on Calvinism pushed me to get involved in the debate and I wanted to know how could I defend the side that you was defending, because I knew you had a reputation of speaking the truth and refuting all the false teachings. That is why I bought from your ministry all the materials I could, such as books, videos, DVD’S etc., in order to know how to defend my previous beliefs. Even when you denied at every breath that you are not an Arminian, I soon discover that in fact you are one, and I was also one of them.
One of the things that first got my attention of the debates you engaged in, was the respectful attitude of your opponents in front of you and also when they were not in front of you. They always treated you as a brother in Christ and they never made, so far as I can recall, a disparaging commentaries or assertions toward your Person or toward your system of beliefs. They always did recognize the importance of your ministry and the great service that you have done to the cause of the gospel.
However, this recognition from their part did not prevent you from seeing their doctrines as questionable heresies. I think all Calvinists deserve a public apology from you and your ministry even if you don’t agree with them. Are you willing to do that? I doubt it!. If you don’t agree with them, that’s fine. You have the right to disagree; but what you have done is more than to disagree with them. What you have done is to level as false teachers some fine brothers in Christ. Do you think your actions are fair and right? Personally I don’t think so. Are you not aware Dave, that Calvinists such as John Piper and John MacArthur for instance, do not believe and do not practice infant baptism, but they are 5 points Calvinists of the traditional Reformed theology nonetheless? But it seems to me that you have missed this point when you write:
“As I said in my response, there are many Calvinists who were saved before they became Calvinists or who have believed the true gospel in spite of their Calvinism –but “those who know only the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved”. If all one believes is that infant baptism saves, as Calvin taught (and which is the case with many Calvinists), one is certainly not saved.” (TBC December, p.5, 2005, emphasis added).
Dave, who are those who know only the false gospel of Calvinism? Who are those “many” Calvinists that teach that infant baptism saves? R. C. Sproul and some other fine Christians practice infant baptism. Do you think they teach a false gospel and they are not saved because of that? As far as I know, there is not a single true Calvinist who thinks that he or she is saved solely on the basis of water baptism as an infant. But I know some Arminians who think their baptism saves them and wash away their sins (the Oneness Pentecostals and Roman Catholics for instance). I would like to know if you can tell me according to you, What makes Calvinism a false gospel? Is it their baptism of infants? Not all of them practice that. What is the biblical basis that you have in order to prove that the Calvinist soteriology is false? Obviously, there are many who call themselves Calvinists that are not saved, but the same thing can be said of any other system of biblical teaching. Are we going to make generalizations here? If yes, then do you think all the Arminian people are saved even when they claim that they are, just because they claim they accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour? No true Calvinist believes that he is saved because of his baptism as an infant. Your accusations and misrepresentations of the Reformed faith is a serious flaw, Dave.
But it is astonishing to see how decided you are to misrepresent Calvinism at every opportunity just because you disagree with it and dare even to affirm things that are clearly not true and misleading such as those you wrote in “What Love Is This”?:
“To believe that those who will be saved have been predestined to salvation by God’s decree, that no others can be saved, and that the elect must be regenerated by God’s sovereign act without the gospel or any persuasion by any preacher, or by any faith in God on their part, could hardly provide motivation for earnestly Preaching the gospel.”(What Love Is This?, 2nd edition, p. 30, emphasis added).
This is one good example of many similar misrepresentations you make through all your book. When I see your comments regarding this issue I can think of two things: 1) You don’t really know nor understand what Calvinists teach concerning salvation, Or, 2) You purposeful misrepresent the Calvinist teaching in order to create a distorted picture in the minds of those who don’t know better. The statement you make that “the elect must be regenerated by God’s sovereign act without the gospel or any persuasion by any preacher, or by any faith in God on their part” is simply NOT TRUE. No Calvinist believes what you are affirming here. Do you think a person living in Saudi Arabia for instance, can be saved without believing in Jesus Christ even if he has been chosen by God? No, and no Calvinist will tell you otherwise. If a person has been chosen by God, that person will believe in Jesus Christ by the proclamation of the Gospel and the persuasion of a preacher to repent and believe. If this things that are so basic in Calvinist theology you don’t understand them, How can you make a fair presentation of the more difficult issues?
But you cleverly insert the words “on their part” in order to somehow justify your affirmation. And yet, even when we do affirm categorically that a sinner CANNOT exercise or have saving faith in God ON THEIR PART or by their own free will decision, we don’t deny the means that God uses to bring to salvation to those whom He has chosen to save from the beginning. Those means are us the preachers, the Word of God and the Gospel message.
If I am saved it is not by accident nor because I am smarter than those who have not “used correctly their own free will to believe”. I am saved because God had mercy on me a sinner and He did not give me what I deserved (hell), He gave me what I did not deserve (Heaven) and this is only to the “Praise of His glory”. My salvation did not depend on me. I did nothing to deserve it, on the contrary, I did a lot of things to not deserve it. It is only by grace from the beginning to the end. The Bible says that we were chosen by God before we were born (Gal. 1:15). The Bible also says that we were chosen “in Him” even “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). Now, just because we were chosen by God even before we were born, Do you think we did not need to believe in the gospel in order to be saved? (Acts 16:31).
The Bible clearly states that God ordains the ENDS, but He also ordains the MEANS to that end. So, God the Father chose me before the foundation of the world, God the Son died on the cross for my sins, but God the Holy Spirit applied that salvation to me when He regenerated me because I was dead in “trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:5). Then, at that precise moment my spiritual eyes were opened and I could see my desperate and sinful situation and I cried out to God for mercy. As a result of this work of the Holy Spirit I did repent and asked Jesus Christ to forgive all my sins, and He not only forgave all my sins (past, present and future), but He also gave me eternal life. All of this could not have happened if I’ve never heard the Preaching of the gospel. The Word of God must be preached and the gospel must be proclaimed in order that the elect (who also are dead in trespasses and sins) might be regenerated through the Holy Spirit and believe.
Therefore, I had to believe in Jesus Christ in a particular moment of my life. Nobody can be saved without been chosen by God before the foundation of the world, but also, nobody can be saved without believing in Jesus Christ in their particular life and in their particular time in history. Both things are equally true and are not contradictory in any way. This is what a true Calvinist believes and not the caricature you have made about the infants baptism. It is better to admit that maybe you do not understand well the Reformed faith, than to make distortions of what others believe.
What really astonishes me is that you have not improved your understanding of the Calvinist theology or soteriology in all the debates you have done and the consequences of believing what you believe, but instead have been getting worse. How about Open Theism Dave? Are you familiar with their teachings? Are you familiar with the teachings of Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, John Sanders, Richard Rice, etc.? I really would like to hear what you have to say about this heresy. They are deadly wrong in what they believe, but at least they are consistent. But in your case, you want to keep holding to a system of beliefs even when that system (Arminianism) has been proved to be wrong and inconsistent not only by Calvinists, but also by Open Theists themselves! I would like to hear what you have to say in a debate with an Open Theist!
I urge you to read more from original Calvinist writers and set aside books by authors such as Laurence M. Vance. If all the information you get on Calvinism, is from authors like him, you will always misrepresent the Reformed faith. Why don’t you read by yourself contemporary Calvinist authors such as John M. Frame, D. A Carson, John Piper, Bruce A. Ware, Roger Nicole, Michael Horton, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, etc. and then critique their writings? It will be very good before writing against someone or something, to get familiar with what these authors teach instead of getting information through secondary sources. And when you quote Calvinist authors you quote them out of context. That was the case with your quotation of Charles Spurgeon in the first edition of your book “What Love is This?”. I have read that quotation myself in the original sermon of Spurgeon and to my amazement, it supports limited atonement instead of speaking against it. If I, that I am not an expert theologian can discover the straws in your writing against Calvinism, Can you imagine how those who are well trained in these matters can expose such a great errors that you commit in your writings against the Reformed Faith?
You also wrote in the TBC Newsletter, “If a person believes that he was saved through infant baptism, how is it possible for him, without relinquishing that false belief, to truly be saved by believing the gospel? He has no need of the true gospel, having already been forgiven his sins and made a child of God through infant baptism. He may affirm at his confirmation that Christ died for his sins, but he still believes that the benefit of that sacrifice came to him through infant baptism long before his “confirmation” of this lie” (TBC December, p.5, 2005 emphasis added).
Again, you built an ugly straw man and had beat it to death. Is this always your way of doing “apologetics” Dave?. I am very disappointed with your methodology. Can you please quote the names of those Reformed authors who believe what you affirm and can you quote also their particular writings where they clearly state this lie (e.g. that they are saved through infant baptism?) My impression Dave, is that you are so confused about this, that your imagination invent things that no true Reformed theologian or Calvinist pastor or preacher has ever or will ever teach. What is the name of the teacher who thought that infant baptism saves? Spurgeon? Warfield? Hodge? Edwards? Pink? You say Calvin did it, but Alas! You don’t quote him, you just affirm that. That’s it! If you have this “proofs,” Why don’t you take the time to quote them? But please, make total and complete quotations and don’t break them into pieces in order to make them say what you want them to say. It doesn’t do any good to the gospel of Christ to mud the waters with false statements half truths and empty rhetoric filled only with emotional baggage, but with no real substance in it.
Every time I read things like the ones you wrote, I am the more convinced of the shallowness of the “Arminian theology” and the impotence of their supporters to give a serious and biblical response to the Reformed faith. And that impotence is reflected by recurring again and again to a highly emotional appealing rhetoric or by making a “straw man” at every opportunity. I don’t support infant baptism myself, but I respect those Christian believers who practice it. And by the way, that practice don’t make them Roman Catholics in any shape or form.
Not even Norman Geisler did a convincing response to the Reformed Theology in his book “Chosen But Free”, but at least he was careful and serious enough for not bringing peripheral issues such as those you have done in your attacks on Calvinism, like the burning of Servetus, the pope of Geneva and the likes. Geisler realizing his lack of support from Scripture to defend what he has branded as “Calminianism” (just another form of Arminianism), has refused to debate publicly those Reformed theologians and have declined time after time to engage in debates of any form. But you did not declined, which is something good and commendable. But your main problem is that you have refused to treat fairly and accurate even the most basic and elementary distinctive aspects of the Reformed theology. With this attitude, there is no way you can build a decent and serious case against it.
I guess if your approach to this debate were from the beginning more accurate and precise, you could be in a very different position now. But you have been attacking Calvinism time after time as a heresy. Do you really believe that Calvinism is a heresy, Dave? It is sad that you are unwilling to open your eyes and to start investigating Calvinism from the beginning, without bias and with an open mind. With this kind of approach that you use in discussing this subject, Do you not think for a moment that the Calvinists brothers have the same right and use your same tactics and to call you a teacher of error too? Honestly and with all respect, I think they have the same right to do it. BUT THEY DON’T DO IT!. Why not? Because they know that it is a very serious thing to call someone a false teacher or a heretic.1 They also know that you are a precious brother in the faith!! They are aware that your lack of understanding in this matters do not make you a heretic in any sense. They know pretty well that the Arminian teaching is, in spite of all its inconsistencies still biblical. And that Arminian Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ even when we disagree with them in some fundamental issues.
But I think in this debate you are only “kicking the prick” and hurting yourself like Paul did one time, and my hope is that eventually you will realize your great mistake in attacking Calvinism as a heresy. You have the right to expose Calvinism and to show its errors, inconsistencies, flaws or whatever, but always doing your best efforts to portray it like any other teaching, as accurate and fairly as possible. But you have chose the easiest way. The way of using a lot of “straw man” and “misrepresentations” with the only purpose to see yourself as a winner. Do you really care about the truth of the gospel Dave? Have you thought in the possibility that you may have more in common and more connections with Roman Catholics than the Reformed Christians you say they have?
Paul was convinced of his mistake by the appearance of Jesus Christ Himself. The problem is that you may not have the same experience Paul had in his Road to Damascus. All the revelation we have available is now in the Bible, but you refuse to see all the evidence that supports the Reformed teaching. And I can go on quoting to you all that evidence, but I think it will be in vain because many others have tried to make you see it, but until now with no success whatsoever.
If you want to continue believing in the inconsistencies of Arminian soteriology or you want to become an Open Theist in order to be more consistent, that’s fine. Or if you want to laugh all day long about the Reformed faith, that’s fine also. But what is not right to do, nor honest of your part, is to misrepresent the Reformed faith and to make caricatures of it, but sadly, this is exactly what you do at every opportunity you have.
And you may disregard this letter as something worthless and with no value whatsoever. You may throw it in the trash or tear it into pieces if you want, but one thing you must not do (because it is not fair to do it), and that is to keep attacking Calvinism as a false and unbiblical teaching. The memory of the heroes of the Reformed faith Dave, which are also the heroes of our precious evangelical Christian heritage do not deserve to be treated like that. I hope you consider this in prayer, and always remember that you are not opposing and attacking a pagan or unbiblical teaching, but instead, you are opposing and attacking the very heart of the gospel of Grace, the very gospel that broke in pieces the chains of bondage of Roman Catholicism. Nothing more and nothing less.
Daviel DePaz, Pastor
Tulsa, OK.
Notes:
1One of the recent works that has been written in a very kind spirit against Arminianism is the book: “Why I Am Not An Arminian?” by: R. Peterson and M. Williams. They say: “The Synod of Dort was right to condemn the Arminian misrepresentation of the saving ways of God. Yet we do not think of Arminianism as a heresy or Arminian Christians as unregenerate. You see, calling someone a heretic is serious business. Heresy is not merely doctrinal error; it is damnable error. The heretic so mangles the gospel of Jesus Christ that it no longer communicates the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Heresy is such a corruption of the grace of God in Christ that it invalidates either Jesus as the Saviour or grace as the way of salvation. The Arminian tradition does neither”. (Why I am Not an Arminian?, R. Peterson and M. Williams, p. 13, IVP, 2004, emphasis added).
