A Gentle Reminder Why This Website Exists

Since Baptistfire disappeared a few months ago, and our posting here has slowed down a bit, I thought I’d just post a reminder for everybody, myself included, about why this website exists.

To be honest, I don’t even have to offer commentary on what follows. Just consider the source, and remember, this is a source that the folks at Baptistfire touted as reliable and accurate. Remember too that if you go to the Baptistboard at any given time, you will still find folks there who will post his material…

HT: John Hendryx

From the Mind of Dave Hunt

Here is a MUST READ: Commenting on whether Calvinists are saved, in his own words, here is Dave Hunt at his best, apparently unconcerned for historical and theological accuracy, throwing all caution to the wind. Read through it — no further commentary necessary.

Question [composite of several]: Was this a misstatement, or do you really believe what you said in your September Q&A: “Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved”?

Answer: The original question was, “Is it possible for someone who believes only in the soteriology of Calvin to be saved?” 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. 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.

How could that false faith save? If it does, then the many former Catholics, Lutherans, and Presbyterians who realized they weren’t saved through their infant baptism, and who put their faith in Christ, were born again, and then baptized as believers, have been deluded. But they would vehemently deny that they were saved all the time in spite of their faith in infant baptism! And they would reject Calvin himself as an “ex-Catholic”—because he continued to rely upon his infant baptism for salvation, he declared that being baptized as a baby was the sure way of knowing one was among the elect, he opposed those who got saved and were then baptized, he banned Anabaptists from Geneva in 1537, and he even had some burned at the stake for this belief.

Am I denying that Calvin was saved? No, only God knew his heart. But if all he believed was (as he taught) that Christ died only for the elect, and that his infant baptism into the Roman Catholic Church proved that he was one of the elect, then he never got saved no matter how eloquently he wrote about Christ’s sufferings on the Cross for our sins.

If all one believes is that one has no choice—that it is God who causes some to believe and not others, and that one must be unwittingly regenerated by Him and only then given faith to believe the gospel—how can such a person make a genuine choice to believe in Christ? How could that person, consistent with this Calvinist belief, ever have the assurance offered in 1 John 5:13? No matter how simple and strong his faith in Christ might seem to be, how could he be certain that such “faith in Christ” was truly given to him by God after He had regenerated him?

If all one believes is that Christ died only for the elect but not for all—how can that person be certain that Christ died for him and that his faith in Christ is not presumption? How can he believe the true gospel that “if any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink…let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Jn 7:37; Rv 22:17), if he really believes that he is totally depraved and unable either to hear the invitation or respond to it? Calvin even said that God gives a false sense of assurance to the non-elect the better to damn them. If one’s most basic belief denies the very assurance Scripture offers, how can it be said that one believes the gospel promise of “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31)?

That a person may believe the true gospel and thus be truly saved in spite of believing the false gospel of Calvinism may be possible. But I don’t see how one could sort out the fact that contradictory beliefs were being held. What does one really believe?

Source: http://www.thebereancall.org/Newsletter/questionanswer/2005/dec05a.php

Now…there’s just so much wrong with this that it is difficult to know where to start. So, I’m just going to sit back and let y’all hash this one out.

Explore posts in the same categories: BaptistFire - Direct Responses, Other Anti-Calvinism

11 Comments on “A Gentle Reminder Why This Website Exists”

  1. Nathan White Says:

    Hey Gene,

    This one is so bad that it might even deserve its own post. Check it out:

    From the Sept edition of The ‘Berean’ Call:

    Question: My wife and I look forward each month to The Berean Call.
    We…praise the Lord that someone is still contending “…for the faith
    which was once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Your Dec. 2005 article,
    “Wonderful Love,” was especially uplifting [but] I question where you say,
    “He [God]…caused Him [Christ] to endure the eternal Lake-of-Fire….” That
    would certainly make the “little god-Kenneth Copeland” very happy
    [considering] his teaching…that Jesus had to fight the devil in hell for
    three days and nights and be “born again” to purchase our redemption. I am wondering WHICH book of the Bible you got that from?!

    Answer: It is foundational to the gospel that Christ experienced the
    suffering of the Lake of Fire for every person who would ever be born.
    Christ’s declaration, “It is finished [tetelestai, meaning ‘paid in full’]”
    surely indicates that He suffered what all mankind were doomed to suffer for their sins. That must include the Lake of Fire eternally.

    Our Lord became a man “that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb 2:9). Inasmuch as the Lake of Fire is “the second death” (Rv 20:14) that all of the damned will suffer forever, Christ must have suffered that eternal penalty for all mankind. If not, there would still be something for the redeemed yet to pay. But that cannot be the case for those who “shall not come into condemnation; but have passed from death unto life…” (Jn 5:24).

    That Christ endured the pains of the Lake of Fire does not mean that He
    suffered in the Lake of Fire. The teaching of Copeland (and others) that
    Christ suffered in hell is false doctrine! He bore our sins on the cross; it
    was from the cross that He cried in triumph, “Tetelestai!”; and we are
    redeemed by His blood shed in His death on the cross.

  2. Carla Rolfe Says:

    Well, I’m not going to have anything to say about Dave Hunt’s understanding of God’s sovereign grace, that someone else hasn’t already said, and likely said much more eloquently than I ever could.

    However – I will say that several years ago in a church my family was attending, the associate pastor got up in the puplit one morning and made a sick joke about the elect, and those who believe in election, that could have come right off the desk of Dave Hunt. It was ignorant and it was offensive.

    This seems to be the character of Mr. Hunt – ignorant. (I don’t say that harshly, but just matter of factly). Mr. Hunt has been corrected time and time again in the areas where he errs, and yet he still refuses to see or even acknowledge where he has erred. He seems to be far more interested in defending his traditions than being submissive to the written word. I find that sad. What’s just as sad is that so many others listen to him and nod their heads with that “yup, yup, amen!” attitude, not even realizing that the man has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to this topic. They appreciate and praise his ministry, yet they themselves do not practice being a Biblical Berean – they simply receive what they hear and nod in amen – without ever checking to see if the Scripture supports what they’ve been taught. Now that’s a tragedy.

    The irony here, is that of all the things in the world Mr. Hunt’s ministry could be called, it’s named for the Berean attitude in Acts 17, of those who searched the Scriptures to see if what they heard by word of mouth was actually supported by Scripture. If there is one thing they could never be accused of, it would have been defending traditions over and above the written word.

    TBC states that the purpose in beginning the ministry was to “encourage spiritual discernment among those who regarded themselves as biblical Christians” as well as “exhortation to believers to get back into the Word of God instead of being “carried about by every wind of doctrine,” and to equip them with materials to help them walk in the truth.” ( source )

    It seems to me, that of all people connected with TBC, it’s Mr. Hunt himself, that ought to be practicing what his very ministry states is it’s purpose.

    Just thinking outloud…
    Carla Rolfe

  3. Mark Brown Says:

    I feel sorry for David Hunt. At first he angered me. Now I just pity the man with his twisted sense of logic, scripture and history. He has even admitted to NOT reading the reformers such as Calvin. Like so many, he does not let truth get in the way of his reasoning.

    Gene, thanks for the link to baptistboard. I visited it for about 2 hours reading some of the topic, the posts etc. One more website I will not be going back to, unless I need a refresher course in circular reasoning, mis reading quoting or interpreting scripture.

    I guess I should earmark it like hunts. When I need reminding of what is out there twisting in the wind.

  4. Scott Says:

    This is unbelievable but certainly not a surprise. A typical straw man argument where Mr. Hunt presents a Calvinism that doesn’t exist except in his own mind. Then of course you get the “yup, yup, amen” people as Carla has already mentioned. Most people in the pews that reject Calvinism have never really had it explained what those who are Calvinists actually believe, namely the Bible. Jesus talks about Mr. Hunt in Matthew 7: pearls before swine.

  5. Nathan White Says:


    You make a great point. It seems like the term ‘berean’ is forever ruined now 🙂

    BTW, and I do not mean to open of a can of worms here, but Hunt is not only ignorant in the area of the doctrines of grace, but his eschatology is ridiculous as well. Even if one agrees with his method of dispenationalism, it is still obvious that the man has no idea what he’s talking about. One example is how he interprets scripture and blindly forces today’s events into the text. It is laughable at times -to the point that it becomes very sad. I too feel sorry for him in a way, for he clearly has no idea how to interpret the sacred text.


  6. Gene Says:


    Don’t give up on the Baptistboard. The place can’t improve if folks don’t post better material. Remember, Baptistfire used to prohibit anybody that disagreed from posting material on their discussion board. The Baptistboard does not, thankfully, follow that policy. There are lots of good folks from the many different Baptist churches and denominations, SBC and non-SBC there, as well as one or two SBC professors that I know but who post pseudonymously. I’d encourage you to spend some time there, if only to encourage the brethren there who do not reason in a circular, question-begging fashion…particularly if you know anything about Bible versions (the KJV people are are REAL trip over there) or Calvinism. Yes, places like the BBoard can be frustrating, but encouraging the brethren is always a good thing.

  7. 4ever4given Says:

    This is a man that refuses to see because he is not able to see…
    Our responsibility in this is to continue in Truth out of love without compromise knowing that the Lord may or may not use our feeble words to open this mans eyes. For now the Lord has his eyes wide shut. Perhaps even as a part of our own sanctification process in learning how to deal with such idiocy. And I say that really out of love for the Lord and His truth. Yes, this should cause us to be justifiably angry… but in this anger may I not sin, but may it cause me to fervently pray for this man. Not thinking that my prayers will change God’s mind as though He is an open theistic weak God, but pray knowing that He is an all-wise, all-mighty, powerful God who is jealous for His glory and if He sees fit to allow this man to rant on in heresy, there is a purpose in it for sure.

  8. Pete Says:

    I have read exchanges by Mr. Hunt and heard a “debate” between him and James White (or read an exchange- it’s hard to remember). I used to respect him, but have come to realize that he is just full of hot air. Especially after reading the above post and the lake of fire non-sense.

    Also- how can you reject Calvin and his system of theology without READING what he said?! Seems very UN-BEREAN to me!!!

  9. Dave Hunt seems to have NO idea what our Presbyterian brethren actually believe about Baptism! It seems he thinks it’s either Baptismal Regeneration OR believers’ Baptism. How can he say that ‘Calvin believed that infant Baptism saves’ with such certainty when he’s admitted that he hasn’t actually READ very much of Calvin (if any)?

    And has anyone else noticed that Dave Hunt seems to have consigned all non-Baptists to perdition here? I mean, it’s bad enough the misrepresent someone’s teaching, but then to declare they were an unbeliever on the strength of your misrepresentation really takes the proverbial biscuit!

  10. As a Baptist with many Presbyterian friends, I have of course read their side of the debate. Which is why people like ave Hunt really get my proverbial goat. I mean, I’ve read the entire Works of John Wesley, plus a good dose of Adam Clarke. When will Dave Hunt do us Calvinists the decency of reading Calvin? Or when will he do the Presbyterians the decency of reading their writers on Baptism (such as Matthew Henry)? Or is this a vain hope?

  11. Rev. Says:

    How Hunt can make such declarations and yet still be considered by many to be a scholar is simply amazing. He is far from scholarly, let alone being close to even fairly accurate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: