Here's a little something I did on my blog:
Dave Hunt Celebrates The Reformation in February
Most folks here probably know the Reformation is usually remembered as an October event. Popular anti-Reformed author Dave Hunt though has dedicated his entire Berean Call February Newsletter to the Reformation.
The Issue is entitled, Reformation Rejection: shamefully, double-crossing evangelicals have reversed the Reformation, railroading believers back toward the reign of Rome.
Hunt is surprisingly sympathetic to Luther in this article. He gives a quick overview of the causes of Reformation- basically getting his facts right- although at one point he refers to the fifteenth-century Reformation (its the sixteenth century Reformation Dave).
Dave rallies against Protestants who take part in ecumenical compromise- like the 1999 joint declaration between Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Hunt asks: How can those who profess to admire Luther and the Reformation defend Catholicism?
Dave Hunt passionately says:
Although the Roman Catholic Church no longer burns opponents at the stake (a practice now repugnant even to the secular world), it still maintains every false teaching and practice opposed by Luther and his fellow Reformers, thereby deceiving countless millions. It still teaches salvation through baptism, good works, and the other sacraments mediated by Mary as the doorway to Christ; it still offers indulgences at a price for release from purgatory to heaven; and it still rejects the final authority of Scripture! All of the anathemas pronounced by Trent against Protestant beliefs remain in full force and effect. Yet many of Luthers modern followers now embrace Roman Catholicism as the true gospel!
Martin Luther and the other Reformers would have died at the stake rather than sign such documents as JDDJ and ECT! How do we explain todays denial of all that the Reformation stood for by those who claim to honor it and to follow in the faith of the Reformers?
Hunt asks five good questions:
Though lip service is still given to the Reformation, the deep convictions that birthed it have been compromised. The hour grows late and the evangelical church desperately needs to face some honest questions:
1) What was the purpose of the Reformation?
2) Was its uncompromising affirmation of biblical truth appropriate in Luthers day but not now?
3) What did it stand for at that time, at the cost of so many martyrs and so much suffering, that should now be denied?
4) Have Jesus Christ and His gospel changed?
5) Has any belief or practice changed in the Catholic Church that would justify evangelicals embracing Catholicism as the biblical gospel?
Heres the irony: I would love to ask Dave Hunt these same five questions. I think Hunt would do well to look at his own understanding of the Reformation- and ask himself if his theology isnt itself a denial of the Reformation. This is what I mean: by Hunts denial of a key Reformation concept, he in effect denies the entirety of the Reformation.
In Luthers closing remarks to Erasmus in his monumental work, The Bondage of the Will, Luther states:
I praise and commend you highly for this also, that unlike all the rest you alone have attacked the real issue, the essence of the matter in dispute, and have not wearied me with irrelevancies about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and such like trifles (for trifles they are rather than basic issues), with which almost everyone hitherto has gone hunting for me without success. You and you alone have seen the question on which everything hinges, and have aimed at the vital spot; for which I sincerely thank you, since I am only too glad to give as much attention to this subject as time and leisure permit.
Source: LW 33:294.
What was the question on which the entire Reformation hinges? Was it indulgences, Purgatory, or good works? Was it Mary as the doorway to Christ? Luther say things like this are alienis, that is, extraneous- or trifles. The real issue was the freedom or bondage of the human will. Thomas Nettles sums it up this way:
If all hinges on something outside of man, immediately a controversy arises with reference to the freedom and powers of the will. If one has any ability to serve God acceptably, then he is not saved only by the merit of Christ but will attribute part to himself. Their opponents[of the Reformers] maintained, in spite of holding the doctrine of original sin, that the powers of man are only weakened, not wholly depraved. The grace of Christ, therefore, aiding him, the sinner has something from himself which he is able to contribute. The reformers maintained that the sinner possesses no ability whatever to act aright. These teachings called for an alteration of the Roman system from its roots; they made Luther at odds with the entire theological world.
Source: Thomas J. Nettles, Reformation and Revival [Reformation and Revival Vol 1.2 28-29].
What is the hinge upon which the whole Reformation turned? It is the realization of the enslaved will- the total depravity of mankind. Luther came to realize the depravity of mankind and the beautiful grace of Christ that sets the enslaved sinner free from bondage. The will itself is in bondage to sin. It can do nothing God pleasing to merit salvation- not a work or positive inclination. It is dedicated to God-hatred until God sets it free. What does Dave Hunt think of the bondage of the human will?
Dave Hunt makes no hesitation in denying the bondage to sin of the human will- thus, at the most important point in Reformation doctrine, Hunt denies the Reformation. In his book, What Love Is This? Hunt launches into a lengthy section attacking Luthers book, the Bondage of the Will. He states:
Luther boasts of his conclusion without giving any valid supporting arguments. He secures his thesis by his own mere definition, not by logic or Scripture. His assertions above do not follow. Nor does he provide sufficient biblical support in this entire work to make his case for the will being in bondage.
Source: Dave Hunt, What Love is This? [Second edition] page 219.
Throughout Bondage, Luther is like a bully who will not listen to reason. Yet Packer and other Calvinists praise the dialectical strength of Luther s powerful Latin. B.B. Warfield calls Bondage a dialectic and polemic masterpiece. In fact, Bondage contains so many contradictions and so much fallacious reasoning that one wonders how it obtained its reputation as such a logically drawn treatise.
Source: Dave Hunt, What Love is This? [Second edition] page 227.
That the will contrary to what Luther argues in his greatest treatise is not bound is clear. We have already refuted the argument that, because the will is always beset with influences, that proves it is not free. Man, as Paul admits in his case (Romans 7:7-25), often fails to do what he would like to do but not always. Paul doesnt say that he never can do what he wills much less that his will is in bondage.
Source: Dave Hunt, What Love is This? [second edition] page 228.
Even though there would be major differences in the religious expression of Dave Hunt and Desiderius Erasmus, at the most fundamental point they are united against Luther. Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dispensationalist stand together in unity. While Hunt can rally against the Papacy, Purgatory or Mary, these are really nothing in comparison to the devastating effect of inserting free will into ones theology. By doing so, Hunt has in effect turned faith into a meritorious work.
In his book Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul points out that the Arminian position (someone like Dave Hunt holds) is really a return to the works righteousness of Rome:
Packer and Johnston note that later Reformed theology, however, condemned Arminianism as a betrayal of the Reformation and in principle as a return to Rome. They point out that Arminianism in effect turned faith into a meritorious work. We notice that this charge is qualified by the words in effect. Usually Arminians deny that their faith is a meritorious work. If they were to insist that faith is a meritorious work, they would be explicitly denying justification by faith alone. The Arminian acknowledges that faith is something a person does. It is a work, though not a meritorious one. Is it a good work? Certainly it is not a bad work. It is good for a person to trust in Christ and in Christ alone for his or her salvation. Since God commands us to trust in Christ, when we do so we are obeying this command. But all Christians agree that faith is something we do. God does not do the believing for us. We also agree that our justification is by faith insofar as faith is the instrumental cause of our justification. All the Arminian wants and intends to assert is that man has the ability to exercise the instrumental cause of faith without first being regenerated. This position clearly negates sola gratia, but not necessarily sola fide.
Then why say that Arminianism in effect makes faith a meritorious work? Because the good response people make to the gospel becomes the ultimate determining factor in salvation. I often ask my Arminian friends why they are Christians and other people are not. They say it is because they believe in Christ while others do not. Then I inquire why they believe and others do not? Is it because you are more righteous than the person who abides in unbelief? They are quick to say no. Is it because you are more intelligent? Again the reply is negative. They say that God is gracious enough to offer salvation to all who believe and that one cannot be saved without that grace. But this grace is cooperative grace. Man in his fallen state must reach out and grasp this grace by an act of the will, which is free to accept or reject this grace. Some exercise the will rightly (or righteously), while others do not. When pressed on this point, the Arminian finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that ultimately his salvation rests on some righteous act of the will he has performed. He has in effect merited the merit of Christ, which differs only slightly from the view of Rome.
If the Scriptures are correct on total depravity, then no such work of faith is possible- in other words- Hunt's concept of non-meritorious faith really is an empty, meaningless theological concept .OK, I know Arminians like Dave Hunt do not believe that placing faith in Christ is a work. But, if the Arminian theological paradigm allows man to do at least one good thing pleasing to God: believing on Christ- then a fallen man can do at least one good thing on his own- he has the ability to do something that merits grace. Goodbye Reformation- hello chaos.
In effect, Hunt denies the Reformation by his doctrine of free will- and makes possible things like ECT and JDDJ. Because of the virus of free will inserted into a theological system, all sorts of deviant theology can abound. In other words- theology like that put forth by Dave Hunt makes possible the gross heresies we find today rampant in evangelicalism. It's the common ground of free will Dave that theology like yours share with Roman Catholics and double crosses those of us dedicated to the Reformation.
Dave Hunt Celebrates The Reformation in February
Most folks here probably know the Reformation is usually remembered as an October event. Popular anti-Reformed author Dave Hunt though has dedicated his entire Berean Call February Newsletter to the Reformation.
The Issue is entitled, Reformation Rejection: shamefully, double-crossing evangelicals have reversed the Reformation, railroading believers back toward the reign of Rome.
Hunt is surprisingly sympathetic to Luther in this article. He gives a quick overview of the causes of Reformation- basically getting his facts right- although at one point he refers to the fifteenth-century Reformation (its the sixteenth century Reformation Dave).
Dave rallies against Protestants who take part in ecumenical compromise- like the 1999 joint declaration between Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Hunt asks: How can those who profess to admire Luther and the Reformation defend Catholicism?
Dave Hunt passionately says:
Although the Roman Catholic Church no longer burns opponents at the stake (a practice now repugnant even to the secular world), it still maintains every false teaching and practice opposed by Luther and his fellow Reformers, thereby deceiving countless millions. It still teaches salvation through baptism, good works, and the other sacraments mediated by Mary as the doorway to Christ; it still offers indulgences at a price for release from purgatory to heaven; and it still rejects the final authority of Scripture! All of the anathemas pronounced by Trent against Protestant beliefs remain in full force and effect. Yet many of Luthers modern followers now embrace Roman Catholicism as the true gospel!
Martin Luther and the other Reformers would have died at the stake rather than sign such documents as JDDJ and ECT! How do we explain todays denial of all that the Reformation stood for by those who claim to honor it and to follow in the faith of the Reformers?
Hunt asks five good questions:
Though lip service is still given to the Reformation, the deep convictions that birthed it have been compromised. The hour grows late and the evangelical church desperately needs to face some honest questions:
1) What was the purpose of the Reformation?
2) Was its uncompromising affirmation of biblical truth appropriate in Luthers day but not now?
3) What did it stand for at that time, at the cost of so many martyrs and so much suffering, that should now be denied?
4) Have Jesus Christ and His gospel changed?
5) Has any belief or practice changed in the Catholic Church that would justify evangelicals embracing Catholicism as the biblical gospel?
Heres the irony: I would love to ask Dave Hunt these same five questions. I think Hunt would do well to look at his own understanding of the Reformation- and ask himself if his theology isnt itself a denial of the Reformation. This is what I mean: by Hunts denial of a key Reformation concept, he in effect denies the entirety of the Reformation.
In Luthers closing remarks to Erasmus in his monumental work, The Bondage of the Will, Luther states:
I praise and commend you highly for this also, that unlike all the rest you alone have attacked the real issue, the essence of the matter in dispute, and have not wearied me with irrelevancies about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and such like trifles (for trifles they are rather than basic issues), with which almost everyone hitherto has gone hunting for me without success. You and you alone have seen the question on which everything hinges, and have aimed at the vital spot; for which I sincerely thank you, since I am only too glad to give as much attention to this subject as time and leisure permit.
Source: LW 33:294.
What was the question on which the entire Reformation hinges? Was it indulgences, Purgatory, or good works? Was it Mary as the doorway to Christ? Luther say things like this are alienis, that is, extraneous- or trifles. The real issue was the freedom or bondage of the human will. Thomas Nettles sums it up this way:
If all hinges on something outside of man, immediately a controversy arises with reference to the freedom and powers of the will. If one has any ability to serve God acceptably, then he is not saved only by the merit of Christ but will attribute part to himself. Their opponents[of the Reformers] maintained, in spite of holding the doctrine of original sin, that the powers of man are only weakened, not wholly depraved. The grace of Christ, therefore, aiding him, the sinner has something from himself which he is able to contribute. The reformers maintained that the sinner possesses no ability whatever to act aright. These teachings called for an alteration of the Roman system from its roots; they made Luther at odds with the entire theological world.
Source: Thomas J. Nettles, Reformation and Revival [Reformation and Revival Vol 1.2 28-29].
What is the hinge upon which the whole Reformation turned? It is the realization of the enslaved will- the total depravity of mankind. Luther came to realize the depravity of mankind and the beautiful grace of Christ that sets the enslaved sinner free from bondage. The will itself is in bondage to sin. It can do nothing God pleasing to merit salvation- not a work or positive inclination. It is dedicated to God-hatred until God sets it free. What does Dave Hunt think of the bondage of the human will?
Dave Hunt makes no hesitation in denying the bondage to sin of the human will- thus, at the most important point in Reformation doctrine, Hunt denies the Reformation. In his book, What Love Is This? Hunt launches into a lengthy section attacking Luthers book, the Bondage of the Will. He states:
Luther boasts of his conclusion without giving any valid supporting arguments. He secures his thesis by his own mere definition, not by logic or Scripture. His assertions above do not follow. Nor does he provide sufficient biblical support in this entire work to make his case for the will being in bondage.
Source: Dave Hunt, What Love is This? [Second edition] page 219.
Throughout Bondage, Luther is like a bully who will not listen to reason. Yet Packer and other Calvinists praise the dialectical strength of Luther s powerful Latin. B.B. Warfield calls Bondage a dialectic and polemic masterpiece. In fact, Bondage contains so many contradictions and so much fallacious reasoning that one wonders how it obtained its reputation as such a logically drawn treatise.
Source: Dave Hunt, What Love is This? [Second edition] page 227.
That the will contrary to what Luther argues in his greatest treatise is not bound is clear. We have already refuted the argument that, because the will is always beset with influences, that proves it is not free. Man, as Paul admits in his case (Romans 7:7-25), often fails to do what he would like to do but not always. Paul doesnt say that he never can do what he wills much less that his will is in bondage.
Source: Dave Hunt, What Love is This? [second edition] page 228.
Even though there would be major differences in the religious expression of Dave Hunt and Desiderius Erasmus, at the most fundamental point they are united against Luther. Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dispensationalist stand together in unity. While Hunt can rally against the Papacy, Purgatory or Mary, these are really nothing in comparison to the devastating effect of inserting free will into ones theology. By doing so, Hunt has in effect turned faith into a meritorious work.
In his book Willing to Believe, R.C. Sproul points out that the Arminian position (someone like Dave Hunt holds) is really a return to the works righteousness of Rome:
Packer and Johnston note that later Reformed theology, however, condemned Arminianism as a betrayal of the Reformation and in principle as a return to Rome. They point out that Arminianism in effect turned faith into a meritorious work. We notice that this charge is qualified by the words in effect. Usually Arminians deny that their faith is a meritorious work. If they were to insist that faith is a meritorious work, they would be explicitly denying justification by faith alone. The Arminian acknowledges that faith is something a person does. It is a work, though not a meritorious one. Is it a good work? Certainly it is not a bad work. It is good for a person to trust in Christ and in Christ alone for his or her salvation. Since God commands us to trust in Christ, when we do so we are obeying this command. But all Christians agree that faith is something we do. God does not do the believing for us. We also agree that our justification is by faith insofar as faith is the instrumental cause of our justification. All the Arminian wants and intends to assert is that man has the ability to exercise the instrumental cause of faith without first being regenerated. This position clearly negates sola gratia, but not necessarily sola fide.
Then why say that Arminianism in effect makes faith a meritorious work? Because the good response people make to the gospel becomes the ultimate determining factor in salvation. I often ask my Arminian friends why they are Christians and other people are not. They say it is because they believe in Christ while others do not. Then I inquire why they believe and others do not? Is it because you are more righteous than the person who abides in unbelief? They are quick to say no. Is it because you are more intelligent? Again the reply is negative. They say that God is gracious enough to offer salvation to all who believe and that one cannot be saved without that grace. But this grace is cooperative grace. Man in his fallen state must reach out and grasp this grace by an act of the will, which is free to accept or reject this grace. Some exercise the will rightly (or righteously), while others do not. When pressed on this point, the Arminian finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that ultimately his salvation rests on some righteous act of the will he has performed. He has in effect merited the merit of Christ, which differs only slightly from the view of Rome.
If the Scriptures are correct on total depravity, then no such work of faith is possible- in other words- Hunt's concept of non-meritorious faith really is an empty, meaningless theological concept .OK, I know Arminians like Dave Hunt do not believe that placing faith in Christ is a work. But, if the Arminian theological paradigm allows man to do at least one good thing pleasing to God: believing on Christ- then a fallen man can do at least one good thing on his own- he has the ability to do something that merits grace. Goodbye Reformation- hello chaos.
In effect, Hunt denies the Reformation by his doctrine of free will- and makes possible things like ECT and JDDJ. Because of the virus of free will inserted into a theological system, all sorts of deviant theology can abound. In other words- theology like that put forth by Dave Hunt makes possible the gross heresies we find today rampant in evangelicalism. It's the common ground of free will Dave that theology like yours share with Roman Catholics and double crosses those of us dedicated to the Reformation.