Dave Hunt's verse-by-verse engagement with Calvinism — 31 chapters mapped to the seven threads. Every passage Hunt addresses is indexed below with his argument and a direct link to the Bible reader. Tap any thread badge to see its definition.
The full book in its entirety. Dave Hunt's exhaustive examination of Reformed theology — over 500 pages of primary source research, with sustained engagement of every major Calvinist proof text. Permission to distribute granted by The Berean Call.
What Love Is This? by Dave Hunt. Copyright The Berean Call. Provided here with publisher permission for free personal study.
Hunt asks the question that Ezekiel 33:11 demands: if Calvinism is true, how can God sincerely strive with those He has no intention of saving? He demonstrates that the Spirit striving with man (Genesis 6:3) is meaningless if man cannot hear or respond. The chai-ani oath of Ezekiel 33:11 — God swearing by his own life — establishes a sincerity that Calvinism's 'two wills' doctrine cannot sustain.
Hunt's Chapter 11 argues directly that divine sovereignty does not require human determinism — the same argument the mashal/timshol grammar makes. He shows that God can neither tempt nor be tempted (James 1:13), which means if God designed the Fall, he authored temptation. Hunt calls this 'a distorted sovereignty' — the same phrase the project uses from Genesis 4:7.
Hunt demonstrates in Chapters 7 and 9 that Total Depravity as Calvinism defines it — total inability — creates an impossible situation: God commands what man constitutively cannot do, then judges him for not doing it. His nekros argument (Chapter 24) is particularly relevant: Ephesians 2:1-3 describes the 'dead' as actively walking, following, and doing — the dead are not passive. The bachar imperative of Deuteronomy 30:19 commands what the text assumes is genuinely possible.
Hunt's Chapters 22-25 address Irresistible Grace as the most direct refutation of Acts 7:51. He asks: if grace is irresistible, what did Stephen mean by 'you always resist the Holy Spirit'? His analysis of John 6:44 — 'except the Father draw him' — argues from the same grammar the project uses: helkyō (draw) is not coercive compulsion but relational invitation, as shown by its OT parallel mashakh in Song of Solomon 1:4.
Hunt's Chapter 28 is the most sustained popular-level engagement with the double-willing argument. He documents the radio debate with James White on this precise text. White's response — that Jesus wept as 'God of Israel' not as the eternal Son — is the Calvinist evasion Hunt dismantles directly. The ēthelēsa/ouk ēthelēsate grammatical parallelism (the same verb, same tense, same voice for both divine desire and human refusal) is the grammatical core of Hunt's argument and the project's.
Hunt's Chapters 19-20 address the Calvinist limitation of kosmos (world) to 'the elect from the world.' He demonstrates that John consistently uses kosmos for fallen humanity as a whole — 'God did not send His Son to condemn the world but to save it' (John 3:17) — and that limiting kosmos to the elect creates contradictions in John's own usage. Chapter 27 on John 6:44 addresses the Calvinist's 'favorite verse' against universal salvation.
Hunt's Chapter 27 provides the most thorough popular-level engagement with the Calvinist use of John 6:44. His conclusion — 'a thorough examination of John 6 fails to uncover any support for TULIP' — matches the project's conclusion from the Greek grammar of helkyō (draw) and ou pisteuete (you do not believe, not you cannot believe). He demonstrates that John 6:45 names the drawing mechanism: through hearing and learning from the Father.
Hunt's Chapters 18-19 provide the most direct popular-level engagement with Limited Atonement. His analysis of 1 John 2:2 — 'not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world' — matches the project's treatment of hilasmos peri holou tou kosmou. He asks the question in plain language: 'Was some of Christ's blood shed in vain?' The double scope statement (not only... but also for the whole world) is Hunt's primary argument, and it is the project's.
Hunt's Chapter 20 addresses the potter/clay argument directly, in dialogue with Sproul's claim that Romans 9:16 is 'absolutely fatal to Arminianism.' Hunt demonstrates that the potter image comes from Jeremiah 18, where God explicitly says that if the nation turns from its evil he will relent. The potter metaphor is about God's sovereign right to use nations for his purposes — not about pre-selecting individuals for salvation or damnation.
Hunt's Chapter 24 contains his most important argument on the nekros (spiritual death) question. He demonstrates from Ephesians 2:1-3 that the people described as 'dead in trespasses and sins' are simultaneously described as actively walking, following, and fulfilling the desires of the flesh. This is not the description of a corpse incapable of response — it is the description of someone dominated by sin who is nonetheless genuinely active. The 'spiritually dead' hear and believe.
Hunt's Chapter 21 addresses 2 Peter 3:9 ('not willing that any should perish') as the Calvinist's attempt to limit 'any' to 'the elect.' He demonstrates from the context that the 'any' cannot be restricted to the elect without creating absurdity: how could the elect be in danger of perishing in the final fire, and how would God's longsuffering toward the elect prevent that? The universal scope of boulomenos (not willing) is Hunt's argument and the project's.
Hunt's Chapters 29-31 address Perseverance of the Saints — and the psychological damage of Calvinist assurance doctrine. His narrative of 'Al' in Chapters 30-31 traces a fictional Calvinist through the logical consequences of unconditional election: if you cannot know whether you are elect, and if the elect cannot fall away, then you can never be certain of your salvation. This is the pastoral cost of reading Hebrews 6:4-6 as hypothetical or as describing false believers.
Dave Hunt is one of twenty-four approved scholars in the Whosoever Will reference system. These voices reach the same core conclusions through different routes — academic, pastoral, philosophical, and exegetical.
The definitive contemporary Provisionist academic treatment — reaches Hunt's conclusions from the Greek text up.
The philosophical case for genuine universal divine love — the argument Hunt makes pastorally, Walls makes analytically.
848 pages of historical documentation — unlimited atonement was the majority position before Calvin. Grounds Hunt's scope argument in church history.
Smith and Hunt were Calvary Chapel contemporaries. The same open-invitation gospel in pastoral form.
Dave Hunt is one of twenty-four approved scholars in the Whosoever Will reference system. These voices reach the same core conclusions through different routes — academic, pastoral, philosophical, and exegetical.
The definitive contemporary Provisionist academic treatment — reaches Hunt's conclusions from the Greek text up.
The philosophical case for genuine universal divine love — the argument Hunt makes pastorally, Walls makes analytically.
848 pages of historical documentation — unlimited atonement was the majority position before Calvin. Grounds Hunt's scope argument in church history.
Smith and Hunt were Calvary Chapel contemporaries. The same open-invitation gospel in pastoral form.