Home > Books & Book Reviews > What Love Is This? Introduction

What Love Is This? Introduction

Today we begin blogging through Dave Hunt’s What Love Is This? Our selections this time around are from the introductory chapter (“A Brief Word”). I will refer to each chapter by its name. I had originally planned to cover both the introduction and first chapter, but due to the volume of this response I will allow the introduction its own post. Let’s get started.

A Brief Word
This short, one page introduction reveals volumes about the perspective the author takes in this book. This is most apparent in the following quote:

Most shocking of all, however, is Calvinism’s misrepresentation of God who “is love.” It is our prayer that the following pages will enable readers to examine more carefully the vital issues involved and to follow God’s Holy Word and not man. (p. 13)

This is an ironic statement to me. Here we have a mere man claiming that a theological position is a misrepresentation of God, but in the same breath cautioning his readers not to follow the teaching of any man. This is a much overused statement in Christian circles today, one that we really need to get over. Paul was just a man, yet (if we are not liberals or Emergents) we don’t say we need to listen to Jesus (or “the words in red”) and not some man. Our pastors are mere men, yet we don’t say we don’t need to listen to them! Dave Hunt is a fallible man, yet he expects his readers to take his word on Calvinism as Gospel truth. He makes a statement and expects his readers to agree with him, not just to “examine more carefully the vital issues.”

Interestingly, in this brief introduction Hunt claims that

Many sincere, Bible-believing Christians are “Calvinists” only by default. Thinking that the only choice is between Calvinism (with its presumed doctrine of eternal security) and Arminianism (with its teaching that salvation can be lost), and confident of Christ’s promise to keep eternally those who believe in Him, they therefore consider themselves to be Calvinists. (p. 13)

Not only is this claim not true, it is an incredible assumption. If we are to make an assumption about the theological leanings of “many sincere, Bible-believing Christians,” the proper assumption to make is that they are not Calvinists. Expecially given Hunt’s follow-up claim that “It takes only a few simple questions to discover that most Christians are largely unaware of what John Calvin and his early followers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries actually believed and practiced.” If these people are “unaware” of what Calvinism believes, is it not a logical leap to say these people are “Calvinists by default?” I myself have always believed in eternal security, but that did not and does not make me a Calvinist. All it means is that I agree with the Calvinist position, no more! On top of that, I (and likely most “sincere, Bible-believing Christians”) was unaware there was such thing as a “Calvinist position” for many years. How could I (and those other Christians) be a “Calvinist by default” if I (and they) had no idea what the “Calvinist position” taught?

Hunt has loaded the deck in his favor by making this assumption. Notice how he does it: he presents only two options (Calvinism or Arminianism), and says most Christians identify with the option that has one common doctrine they believe (Calvinism). Furthermore, he states that most Christians think these are the only two “options” they have. That’s just not true at all. If it were, we would not have so many people whom are not Arminians but whom are not Calvinists, either. I think a more true statement would be to say most Christians don’t even know there are options!

My argment in the above paragraphs is only bolstered by the recent LifeWay studies that show graphically that 90% of Southern Baptist pastors are not Calvinists. From that we can say that 90% of Southern Baptist churches, and by extension the vast majority of Southern Baptists, are decidedly not Calvinists! Hunt has used very sloppy arguments in claiming what he has claimed.

Hunt also tries to portray modern Calvinism as fractured and detached from what Calvin and his followers believed and practiced:

Although there are disputed variations of the Calvinist doctrine, among its chief proponents (whom we quote extensively in context) there is a general agreement on certain core beliefs. Many evangelicals who think they are Calvinists will be surprised to learn of Calvin’s belief in salvation through infant baptism, and of his grossly un-Christian behavior, at times, as the “Protestant Pope” of Geneva, Switzerland.

Okay. Let’s tackle the first statement. Why is it a problem that there is a core agreement and peripheral disagreements? Baptists have core agreements and “disputed variations” as well, yet no one (to my knowledge) claims Baptists “misrepresent God who is love” in their stated theology. The same holds true for Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopals, and so on. This is a worthless, throwaway statement by Hunt, likely intended to get the reader on his side by attempting to drive a wedge between his readers and Calvinists. “See, Calvinists don’t agree with each other despite common beliefs, therefore they must not be biblical!” This is the same argument Roman Catholics use against Protestantism, and the same argument many of you have encountered while witnessing to the lost. They cannot agree with each other, therefore the whole system must not be true. This is a blatant falsehood.

As to his second statement, why should Calvin’s beliefs be surprising? He is, for all intents and purposes, the founder of Presbyterianism. We all know (don’t we?) that Presbyterians believe in baptizing babies (baptismal regeneration), yet we don’t condemn the Presbyterian church as “misrepresenting God” nor do we claim the Presbyterian church is “un-Christian.” We might have objections to this belief, but we do not claim our Presbyterian brethren are not of Christ!

Calvin’s “grossly un-Christian behavior, at times” is another throwaway statement by Hunt. What if I were to write a book purporting to refute What Love Is This? and included as a point of refutation: “Hunt’s grossly un-Christian behavior, at times” as a reason not to believe what he believes? Hunt would rightly accuse me of libel, slander, character assasination, uncharitableness, gossip, backstabbing, and any number of other unbiblical, un-Christian behaviors on my part. Further, some of the greatest thinkers, theologians, pastors, presidents, etc. in history acted in ways that in modern days we might find morally repulsive. One common example is that some of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention fully supported the institution of slavery. Today we find slavery to be morally repugnant, yet in their time it was believed by many to be morally acceptable. Hunt fails to take Calvin in the context of his time, when heresy meant death by the Roman Inquisition. And in failing to consider Calvin in his social context, he grossly misrepresents Calvin the man.

Finally, Hunt claims that “the first edition of this book was greeted by fervent opposition and criticism from Calvinists.” I know that James White has addressed this book both in print and in debate. I know that many Calvinists have looked on this book with something approaching sadness and pity. But what I have most noticed from Calvinists and my Calvinistic friends is that, to a person, all agree that this book is an insult and caricature of them and what they believe, rather than a serious, well-researched, well thought-out book about Calvinism.

Why would they not “fervently oppose and criticize” it? Hunt has stated that Calvinists “misrepresent God,” that they are fractured and disputatious, that they follow a man and not the Bible, and that the one who first systematized their theology was “grossly un-Christian.” For Calvinists not to fervently oppose and criticize this book would mean that there is some element of truth in what Hunt has written. That they have done so should tell us that there is more to this story than Hunt would have us believe. As Paul Harvey would say, we need to know “the rest of the story.”

Join us next time as we delve into chapter 1, “Why This Book?”

  1. David
    April 8, 2008 at 11:42 pm

    As to your comment about Calvin and infant baptism. I think linking it to baptismal regeneration is a little unfair. I know that Spurgeon accused J.C. Ryle of this. I know that some in reformed churches hold to presumptive regeneration. I am not trying to debate but just asking whether maybe we should extend this grace to our paedo-brothers in Christ.

    In fact at the PCA, I am a member of, Pastor Chris makes a point of stating that the waters do not save the child so as to preclude confusion, although I fear that many in the congregation understand it as you have said, but then vox populi is often different than the stated theology.


    PS Maybe we could meet in real life next week at T4G.

  2. April 9, 2008 at 5:05 am


    Certainly, I am definitely looking forward to finally meeting you! Perhaps we can find a free moment to talk about this a bit more then.

    Perhaps I was a bit hasty to state it as I did. The Westminster Confession of Faith seems to leave room for it but does not come out solidly on the side of baptismal regeneration. That is, it does not tie regeneration directly to baptism but does not say it doesn’t happen that way, either. But I think you are correct, perhaps it is more of a popular belief than what is actually confessed.

  3. April 9, 2008 at 11:47 am

    Calvin-admiring site; visit/comment, pls.


  4. April 17, 2008 at 10:21 am

    The arguments given by Hunt are definatly fallacious. The arguments given above are ad Hominon. I mean who cares if Calvinist were wrong on everything else they did in history, that still does not mean that they are wrong about the 5 points! The question I have is this: Do you think that his intends to throw out fallacious arguments because he is “ethically challenged.” Perhaps he does not see anything wrong with that. Or do you think that he really thinks these arguments are substantial?

  5. April 18, 2008 at 12:14 am

    I don’t think Hunt is “ethically challenged;” in fact I think that to make such a charge is to engage in the same behavior you accuse him of here — an ad hominem attack.

    I think the reason behind his need to throw out these arguments is illustrated in the first chapter, which I will review and explain what I mean very soon.

  6. Ivan
    October 14, 2008 at 9:34 am

    Would you believe a man who has killed a person (Servatus) because of theology… We discredit popes because of that but yet continue to honor people like Luther and Calvin.
    About doctrine… well… God is making us believe? Why would Jesus cry over Jerusalem, why just not make them believe. God is either not Calvinistic God or he really don’t know how to achieve what he want in life. Peace brothers.

  7. October 14, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Ivan, you need to go back and re-read what I wrote about that particular objection of yours. You make the same mistake Hunt does: you apply modern morality and worldview to history. That’s a no-no.

    Besides, Servetus was a heretic in a time when being a heretic or even being associated with heresy meant death by the Roman Inquisition. I’d encourage you (as I encourage Hunt here) to get your facts straight.

    I also did not address your second objection, nor was your second objection even an issue in the chapter reviewed here. Please stay on-topic and rejoin us when we reach this part of the book.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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: