Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 164:656 (Oct 2007)
Article: Periodical Reviews
Author: Jefferson P. Webster

---

BSac 164:656 (October-December 2007) p. 486

Periodical Reviews

By The Faculty and Library Staff of
Dallas Theological Seminary

Jefferson P. Webster, Editor

“Whose Theology Is This? Dave Hunt’s Misrepresentation of Calvinism,” Mark R. Stevenson, Emmaus Journal 15 (2006): 3-44.

Over the past decade Dave Hunt, a critic of Calvinism, has published several books attempting to discredit and disprove this theological tradition. Stevenson’s article interacts primarily with the updated edition of What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God (Bend, OR: Berean Call, 2004). Stevenson’s article is essentially an extended review of this book.

Stevenson’s thesis is clearly stated: “While Dave Hunt condemns Calvinism as unbiblical, often what he attacks is not historic Calvinism at all but his own distortions and misrepresentation of it. Furthermore, I contend that in his attempts to correct Calvinism’s ‘errors,’ Hunt leaves a trail of theological problems unresolved” (p. 4). By “misrepresentation” Stevenson means that Hunt’s understanding of Calvinism is deeply flawed and that Hunt’s critique of Calvinism is based on a distorted concept of the view he is rejecting. Beyond this Stevenson finds Hunt’s tone and method particularly offensive, and not because Stevenson thinks Calvinism needs to be defended. “I do not feel compelled to defend ‘Calvinism’ as a system of theology—and certainly not Hunt’s portrayal of it. My loyalty is to Christ and the authority of Scripture. My concern however is that, in Hunt’s zeal to discredit Calvinism, he engages in tactics that do not promote understanding or healthy dialogue over important biblical issues, which in turn leads to further discord within the church” (ibid.).

Through numerous examples from Hunt’s book Stevenson demonstrates Hunt’s misrepresentation and inflammatory rhetoric, misleading and selective quotations, ad hominem attacks on Christians (particularly Augustine and Calvin), misreading of historical documents and events, and even misinterpretations of the Bible. Stevenson, following Roger Nicole, argues that in polemic theology “we owe our opponents the basic courtesy of articulating their views accurately—to the extent that if they hear (or read) our description of their position, they would be satisfied” (p. 43). Stevenson concludes, “On this criterion, Hunt has not earned the right to criticize. His distortion of historic Calvinism would not be recognized by actual Calvinists” (p. 44). Hunt’s polemic against Calvinism is an “extensive use of straw men” (p. 20). Perhaps even more importantly Stevenson concludes that Hunt has further divided Christians from each other in his work, having harmed the u...

visitor : : uid: ()