Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The Man In The Mirror

The Reformation's gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone has been betrayed and wed to Roman Catholic works and rituals by Lutherans, Calvinists, and others who practice infant baptism for salvation and boast of the "real presence" of Christ in the bread and wine of remembrance.

So says Dave Hunt in his June 2007 newsletter.

I must say that I find the above accusation to be very ironic in view of the fact that Dave Hunt agrees with Rome over and against the Reformers on the issue that Martin Luther himself called "the hinge upon which the whole turned". The hinge that Luther is refering to of course is the bondage of man's will. So right off the bat, we see that Hunt is making a hypocritical claim at best.

And yet, what of the claim itself? Have Calvinists indeed betrayed the reformational principles of sola gratia and sola fide by wedding their views of infant baptism to Rome's? According to Hunt, we have. But is this actually the case? Not in the least. See folks, what ol' Dave fails to mention here is that many Calvinsts such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and James White are Baptists who do not practice infant baptism at all. Furthermore, those Calvinsts who do practice infant baptism do not believe that regeneration occurs during the baptismal ceremony. It is simply a dedication that is meant to express the child's entrance into the visible church. Yet, these distinctions are not so much as even alluded to by Hunt thus giving his readers the impression that Calvinists in general believe in some form of baptismal regeneration.

So if many Calvinists do not even practice infant baptism, and those who do practice it do not believe in baptismal regeneration, what then of Hunt's claim? I submit that it is nothing more than the usual rank misrepresntation that we are used to seeing from the pen of Dave Hunt. Thus, if Hunt wants to point a finger at someone for betraying the Reformation, he need only look for the nearest mirror.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Justin says...

Agreed. Indeed, I grieve my Reformed brethren who do practice infant baptism. But, just because they practice it doesn't make them wrong about the doctrines of grace. It truly is humorous to see people like Mr. Hunt say, "Because I don't practice infant baptism means I'm right and the Reformers wrong." They too often forget that without the Reformers, they would still be Roman Catholics (which I'm sure would be fine with them).

Anonymous said...

Justin says...

PS, Matt, I wrote a response to Roy's article concerning "A Free-Will Look at John 35:51." You might want to check it out.

pilgrim said...

It is indeed sad when an opponent of paedo-baptism thinks they've disproved it because Rome teahes & practices a form of paedo-baptism.

J. Matthew Cleary said...

Justin,

I'll be sure to take a look at it.

Gojira said...

Hey Brother,

I always get tongue-typed when Hunt is involved. I have never seen a man more ignorant of what his opposition actually teaches than Hunt. I truely do wonder where it is he gets this stuff! While I do not agree with infant baptism, I am at a total loss at the ability to pull rabbits out of his hat. He asserts that the "Reformation's gospel" has been betrayed, and yet he appears totally oblivious to the fact that many of the early Reformers held to infant baptism! To be consistant, would he not have to also say that since the Reformers held to infant baptism, then they also betrayed the Reformation?

As always, excellent post. You are so spot on to note his hypocritical claim.

Okay, rant over.

troypulk said...

Hello,

I think Dave Hunt is a hypocrite, he does not believe in a literal hell, so that means that his belief in free-will theology is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Justin says...

Troy, so because Calvinists believe in a literal hell, does that mean we are incorrect about free-will?

Matt, I meant to say "John 6:35-51." Sorry! :) A huge typo on my part.

Turretinfan said...

Talk about a pot-kettle comment by Hunt!

He teaches synergist salvation in contravention to the Reformation doctrine of Sola Gratia, and then he turns around and confuses Reformed views of the sacraments with the views of the Catholics!

Is there no bound to this author's ignorance of things theological?

-Turretinfan

troypulk said...

Hello,

Justin says...

Troy, so because Calvinists believe in a literal hell, does that mean we are incorrect about free-will?


I might of said it wrong but all I was trying to do was show the contradiction in Dave's logic.

Anonymous said...

Justin says...

:) I know, I just like giving random people a hard time. Sorry if I came off mean, I just have an odd way of having fun.

Bob said...

Hunt is becoming rather well known for making these half baked anathemas against the Reformed Christians. I recall a rather jaw droping statement by him where he unambiguously said that if you were converted in a Calvinistic church you weren't saved. It's a real shame because until Hunt started crusading against Biblical soteriology (Calvinism is it's nickname) I actually considered him a decent apologist.

His slapdash and straw man approach to arguing against Calvinism forced me to question the scholarship of previous work done by Hunt. Needless to say I can never buy a book written by Hunt and not question the integrity of his research after seeing how poorly he represents what Reformed christians believe when trying to give an apologetic against them. I would say similar things of Norm Geisler...but to Geisler's credit he has been far less idiotic and drive by in his approach. Although he did equate irresistable grace to "Divine rape"...sigh. Not only is that not an argument but it is blasphemous. But that is the worst I have heard from Geisler to his credit...Hunt seems shoot from the hip and say ridiculous things like this every other month.

Ched said...

Hmmmm....