But far worse is the way that he uses sources to prove blatant historical errors! He cites a source (p. 19) that claims that, among others, Richard Baxter, John Newton, and John Bunyan opposed Calvinism! Anyone who has read those men knows that they all were strong proponents of Gods sovereign election. (Baxter held to a universal atonement, but he also strongly held to human depravity and Gods sovereign election.) On the same page, he pulls a quote from Spurgeons
Autobiography to prove that Spurgeon was against limited atonement. But in the original context, Spurgeon was arguing
in favor of limited atonement (
Autobiography of C. H. Spurgeon [Banner of Truth], 1:171-172)! In fact, Spurgeon states (1:172) that the teaching that Christ died for everyone is a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. Later (p. 122), Hunt cites a British scholar who thoroughly knew Spurgeons writings and sermons again to the effect that Spurgeon definitely rejected limited atonement and that he ascribed freedom of will to men. Yet in his bibliography (p. 428), Hunt lists Spurgeons sermon, Free Will a Slave, where Spurgeon refutes free will. Iain Murray (
The Forgotten Spurgeon [Banner of Truth], pp. 81 ff.) cites numerous references to show that Spurgeon not only affirmed limited atonement; he also argued that those who deny it weaken and undermine the entire doctrine of the substitutionary atonement. In his autobiography (1:168), Spurgeon called Arminianism (which
is Dave Hunts view, even though Hunt denies it, since he holds to eternal security) heresy and states plainly, Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. Either Hunt is a very sloppy scholar, or he is deliberately trying to deceive his readers into thinking that Spurgeon is on his side when he very well knows that he is not.
On page 102, Hunt quotes Spurgeon again and claims that he could not accept the teaching that regeneration came before faith in Christ through the gospel. Obviously, he is quoting Spurgeon out of context for his own ends (as he frequently does), without any understanding of Spurgeons theology. Murray (
ibid., pp. 90 ff.), thoroughly documents how Spurgeon believed that faith and repentance are impossible before God regenerates the sinner. For example, Murray (p. 94) cites Spurgeon as saying that repentance and faith are the first apparent result of regeneration. And, Evangelical repentance never can exist in an unrenewed soul. Murray cites many more examples. Spurgeon believed that the work of regeneration, conversion, sanctification and faith, is not an act of mans free will and power, but of the mighty, efficacious and irresistible grace of God (p. 104).
On page 100 is another example of how Hunt uses quotations out of context to make his opponent look bad and himself look good. He quotes R. C. Sproul to sound as if Sproul is fully endorsing the view that God is not all that loving toward sinners. But in the preceding and following context of Sprouls book, Sproul is raising an objection that a critic might ask, conceding the critics objection as true for the sake of argument, and then raising a further question to show that the critics question is misguided. Hunt omits the context and thus makes Sproul appear to be saying something he isnt stating at all! This is incredibly bad scholarship and argumentation on Hunts part.
On page 99, Hunt reveals his ignorance of theology when he says that J. I. Packer contradicts his fellow Calvinists and even himself in declaring that regeneration follows faith and justification. Hunt then quotes a sentence from Packer that speaks of justification by faith, not regeneration! Those are distinct theological terms with distinct meanings, as anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of theology would know! But never mind, Hunt discredits Packer to the unsuspecting reader, which is all that matters to Hunt.
Pastor Steven Cole