The Ultimate Conspiracy – Dave Hunt and the Jesuit Attempt to Hijack the Christian Faith

Jesuit conspiracy

The Jesuit Conspiracy
Adullam Films & Noise of Thunder Radio
Presented by Christian J. Pinto
Audio CD (MP3)

The Ultimate Conspiracy – Dave Hunt and the Jesuit Attempt to Hijack the Christian Faith
By Michael Bunker

“But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” — Ephesians 2:4-7

June 22, 2002 — Too often we are not willing to ask the questions that cut to the root of the issues of the day. Our attentions are seized by shiny rocks and relics, by petty debates and well concocted mysteries — so that, in the end, the greatest of all deceptions slides under the door unnoticed.

In the grand debate over whether homosexual, pedophilic priests should be demoted or defrocked, we are loathe to ask the deeper question: Do Catholics go to heaven? Or deeper still, Are YOU Catholic?

While Protestants silently chortle over the convulsions within the world’s largest cult, few are willing to recognize that Catholic doctrine has so overwhelmed the “protestant” religion, that there is not a dimes worth of difference between the two. Why should we be shocked that the priests of the papacy are fondling boys behind closed doors, when they have boldly molested Protestant Church doctrine for the last several hundred years?

Excuse me Bishop Pedofili, can we see BOTH of your hands?

Behold, the Ultimate Conspiracy. While “remnant” Christians and patriots pour through the voluminous documentations of a wicked “New World Order”, a far more heinous conspiracy marches forward unnoticed. In the confusion caused by the frantic attempt to expose the growing menace of fascistic globalism, the opponents of that antichrist system have willingly embraced the very theology of Antichrist.

We must start with some history, and there we will find the fingerprints of the last days Great Deception. Gather around and we will unveil the web of mystery and deceit that has ensnared the churches of the world.


saint Ignatius 1

The Jesuits (or, the Society of Jesus) are a Catholic order founded by the Spanish priest Ignatius Loyola, and ordained by Pope Paul III in September of 1540. Loyola had experienced continuing mystic “visions” beginning in 1523. In the visions, it was revealed to Loyola that he was to be the originator and the master of a grand army that would do battle with what he considered Babylonian hordes. Originally he believed that the enemy he was to battle was the Mohammedans (Muslims), but upon visiting Jerusalem and finding that his enemy was too great to overcome, he came to the conclusion that his enemy MUST be the Protestants. Loyola firmly believed that he had received this vision and this charge from the Blessed Virgin herself, so on the 15th of August in 1534, he, along with his disciples, traveled to the subterranean chapel of the Church of Montmartre, at Paris (which had been consecrated to Mary) where they pledged their services to the Pope, however he might choose to use them. The day was chosen because it was considered by Catholics to be the anniversary of the Assumption of the Virgin.

Loyola had prepared a book entitled “Spiritual Exercises”. This was a rule book by which men could learn to work out their own “conversion”. Through a mystic recipe, a penitent could utilize his mind, and by going through successive “exercises” he could be created into a “converted” warrior for the Pope. The Jesuits believed the claims of Loyola that the “exercises” was a book actually written by the finger of God, and delivered to Loyola by the Mother of God. Let us be perfectly clear, the order of Loyola truly believed that “conversion” could be affected upon oneself, and this put them in violent opposition to the doctrines of the Apostles as preached by the Protestant reformers.

The oath of the Jesuits to serve the Pope according to his pleasure, along with Loyola’s vitriolic hatred of the doctrines of Grace, inevitably would lead to the Jesuit mission to effect a “counter-reformation” by declaring war on the true Christian faith. This mission is reflected in this excerpt of the Jesuit oath:

“I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants’ heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus“.

And so, by command (they believed) of the co-redemptress Mary, the Jesuits set out to use any and all means to attack and destroy the idea of salvation by Grace. The ultimate conspiracy was born.

The Doctrines of Grace


Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(2 Timothy 2:15 KJV)

The centerpiece of the reformers’ doctrine was out of the letter to the Ephesians. Paul had written, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” These verses, when read in their proper context, are odious to all those whose pride will not allow them to receive imputed righteousness. The scriptures plainly claim that: a) we are the workmanship, and not co-workers in our salvation, b) that those good works that are done by us, are not ours, but the works of God worked out through us, c) and that our salvation (including our faith) is a gift of God, and cannot be claimed as a “salary” or a reward for our good works.

What was worse for Loyola and his Catholic cohorts was that the people were beginning to receive the Bible in their “vulgar” tongues, and the doctrines of Grace were now being made evident to even the most ignorant of peasants. That the same book of Ephesians claimed (in Chapter 2, verses 5) that God had quickened his elect “Even when we were dead in sins”, further complicated things for the Catholics. Because it was evident to even the uneducated ploughboy, that a sovereign God was totally responsible for salvation and redemption, and that those who had gained the inheritance (of salvation), had gained that inheritance by being “predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Ephesians 1:11).

It was in 1536, two years after Loyola and his gang made their oaths in the church in Paris, that William Tyndale was martyred as a heretic for, among other things, denying the freedom of the will and for publishing the New Testament in English.

The Council of Trent, 1545


In 1545, the Council of Trent was convened by Pope Paul III. In this Council, the Catholic Church adopted a stance on Justification that was blatantly contrary to the scriptures. In Canon 9 of the Council, the church declared, “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” During the Council, the Jesuits were ordered by the Pope to make war, silently and openly against the Reformation.

Planting Poison in the Well — Jacobus Arminius.


The Counter-Reformation was in full swing. Jesuit spies and agents began to infiltrate Protestant schools, and actually landed on the coast of the United States in the 1530’s and the 1540’s. In order to defend the Romanist religion, as well as the Pope (who Catholics are taught is actually “Christ on earth”), the Jesuits began their war plan for a battle on many fronts, but a full attack on the Doctrines of Grace would be necessary if Rome was to ever prevail. In 1560, unknown to the Jesuits, one of their greatest proponents was to be born in Holland. His name was James Harmenszoon, but he would come to be known as Jacobus Arminius.

Arminius lost his family during a war with the Spanish in 1575. As a fifteen year old orphan, he entered the University of Leyden, and under scholarship by the government of the City of Amsterdam, he was sent to the Theological school in Geneva for studies at the feet of the great reformers. At Geneva, Arminius studied under a professor named Theodore Beza, the man who had assumed the leadership role of the Protestant movement in Switzerland from John Calvin. For some reason that seems to be lost to history, Arminius did not like Beza, and found his forceful defense of the Doctrines of Grace to be harsh and unyielding.

Here is where our mystery gets increasingly interesting. Back in Amsterdam there was a movement of “counter-reformation” begun supposedly by a rich merchant named Dirck Coornhert. Coornhert was a Dutch humanist who was enamored with the teachings of the Catholic humanist Erasmus and a Spanish Jesuit monk named Luis de Molina. Coornhert disdained the reformation teachings on Grace, and sought to confront them wherever he found them. Coornhert had read with growing affections the teachings of de Molina regarding Free Will and Predestination. The Jesuits had hit on a brilliant way of dismantling the debate, they would preach that BOTH were true, and that a good God who was truly sovereign surely might have given his creations a freedom of the will in order to allow them to choose to be saved. Luis de Molina was creating a doctrine that would eventually be called Media Scientia or “Middle-Knowledge”. Eventually this heresy would be called Molinism. In an article on Luis de Molina entitled, Contending for the Faith, Rev. Bernard Woudenberg said of de Molina, “Being a Romanist, he was forced to honor the theology of Thomas Aquinas with its acceptance of divine sovereignty, but at the same time, as a Jesuit, he was committed to defending the papacy against the growing influences of Calvinism. And so de Molina set forth to steer between these by proposing his original and highly influential concept of the media scientia, or “middle- knowledge.” In this he proposed that “between God’s knowledge of the cause and effect relations which He had implanted in the universe, and that of divine freedom whereby He remains free at any time to do what He wills, there is an area of middle-knowledge which God provides for man in which man is granted freedom to do whatever he chooses without outside necessity or predetermination of any kind.” The Hegelian dialectic was in full force. The Catholic lie on justification had been countered by the true doctrine of Salvation by Grace through faith, so an evil “compromise” was now offered to the reformed churches, and by deceit and subterfuge, the compromise would eventually become the predominant teachings in all the churches of the world.

Back in Geneva, Theodore Beza at this time had reason to suspect that his student Jacobus Arminius was not what he proposed to be. Questions were being asked about comments that Arminius was making to fellow students, and there were still questions about his support from the rich, aristocratic merchants of Holland. Apparently Arminius was able to lie well enough to get past Beza’s questioning, a skill that would come in handy years later when he would be looking for a teaching job in Amsterdam. Beza then asked Arminius to answer and refute the teachings of Dirck Coornhert. Although Arminius completed the task, he later claimed to be convinced by Coornhert’s arguments, and he became ardently opposed to the teachings of the reformers. In 1586, Arminius was released from Geneva, but instead of heading back to Amsterdam where he was under contract to the City to labor in order to pay back his tuition, he headed to Rome for a “vacation”.

Generally, most Calvinists believe that it was during this time in Rome that Arminius was recruited by the Jesuits to their point of view. That allegation cannot be proven, and I believe that there is enough other evidence that Arminius was compromised long before his pilgrimage to Rome. By this time, he had become a private student of the writings of de Molina, and in 1588, the same year in which Arminius was ordained a minister (by the endorsement of Beza), de Molina published his treatise on the will entitled A Reconciliation of Free Choice with the Gifts of Grace, Divine Foreknowledge, Providence, Predestination and Reprobation. What the Jesuits were loathe to admit, was that Molinism was nothing more than a rebirth of the ancient Pelagianism heresy, although it actually more easily likened to “Semi-Pelagianism” which contends that man cannot be saved apart from God’s grace; however, fallen man must cooperate and assent to God’s grace before he will be saved. The Jesuits recognized that the Protestants would never embrace the teachings of a Catholic Spanish monk, so they capitalized on the growing and open debates taking place within Protestantism. Molinism would be recast as Arminianism, and eventually, it would take over the ecclesiastical world. A famous quote from de Molina eerily fortells of the Jesuit lie that proceeds from the mouths of “evangelical” leaders today: “all human beings are endowed with equal and sufficient divine grace without distinction as to their individual merits, and that salvation depends on the sinner’s willingness to receive grace”. The Catholics say of Molinism: “Molinism is an influential system within Catholic theology for reconciling human free choice with God’s grace, providence, foreknowledge and predestination. Originating within the Society of Jesus in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, it encountered stiff opposition from Bañezian Thomists and from the self-styled Augustinian disciples of Michael Baius and Cornelius Jansen.” – Alfred J. Freddoso, Catholic Professor at Notre Dame

Upon returning to Amsterdam in 1590, Arminius married the daughter of one of Holland’s wealthiest aristocrats. To see how far Jacobus had fallen from his original reformed ideals, we note that in 1591, he was hired by his wealthy benefactors to draw up a church order that would subordinate the church to a place of dependence and obedience to the state. That particular belief is now the most prevalent abuse of both Christians and the scriptures taught in “churches” today. The policy of abusing Romans 13 for the purposes of enslaving Christians to tyrannical civil magistrates had found a hero in Jacobus Arminius. The Catholic church, even today, admires Arminius. Here is what it says about him in the Catholic Encyclopedia: “A leader was sure to rise from the Calvinistic ranks who should point out the baneful corollaries of the Genevan creed, and be listened to. Such a leader was Jacobus Arminius (Jakob Hermanzoon), professor at the University of Leyden.” — Catholic Encyclopedia

In the early 1590’s, Arminius had become an acquaintance and some would say an admirer of a Jesuit named Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. Bellarmine was engaged in one of the other battlefronts of the war on the Reformation. At the time, one of the biggest battlefields for the Jesuit army was in the area of eschatology. As Christians around the world began to read the Bible for themselves, it became evident to many of them that the Catholic Church figured prominently in prophecy. The teaching that the “Mystery, Babylon the Great, Mother of Harlots” of Revelation 17:5 was actually the papist Church of Rome was gaining steam. In 1590, a Jesuit named Francisco Ribera had begun to write commentaries explaining away those scriptures that plainly taught of the Catholic Church as an element of the Anti-Christ system. Specifically, Ribera wrote a commentary in 1590 that placed a whole new “spin” on Daniel 9:27. Ribera became the first theologian in over 1500 years to teach that the “he” in Daniel 9:27 who confirmed the covenant and put an end to sacrifice was actually “antichrist” and not the Messiah. It had been the uniform teaching of the church since the death of Christ that the “he” who had put an end to all sacrifices on the Cross was Jesus Christ. But the Jesuits needed to create a NEW antichrist, one that was not so easily identified with Rome. By creating the concept of a seven year tribulation, transported way into the future, Ribera was able to divert attention from the most blatant antichrist that had his seat in Rome. Ribera’s ideas were taken and expanded by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine who blatantly taught that Paul, John and Daniel had prophesied nothing whatsoever concerning Rome. We might point out that Bellarmine had a tendency to be famously wrong. It was Cardinal Bellarmine who, as inquisitor, threatened Galileo so convincingly that the scientist recanted of his findings that the earth actually moved around the sun! Bellarmine was subsequently declared a “saint” by the Roman Church.

Stay with us, because this mystery splits off in various and interesting directions.


In the late 1590’s Jacobus Arminius was back in Amsterdam, teaching his Pelagian/Molinist lies. Enough questions had been brought forth concerning his anti-Grace teachings, that a strict Calvinist by the name of Franciscus Gomarus was called upon to interview Arminius to test his orthodoxy. Arminius was applying for a professorship in Theology at the University of Leyden, and the occasion of his job interview would allow his belief system also to be tested. Apparently, Arminius had either become so skilled a liar or his skills in evasion and escape had become so attuned by this point, that he passed the test with flying colors. The question of why Beza and Gomarus, both strict Grace and Election adherents, had both approved of Arminius is unclear, but both were likely blinded by their belief in honor and integrity amongst theologians. During a time when men were willing to die for their faith, the thought that someone would patently lie about his beliefs in order to receive promotions and to avoid detection would have been far from the minds of these two reformers. But lying and deceit were well within the oath and charter of the Jesuits. We will see that these traits are also widely accepted by the intellectual heirs of Jacobus Arminius.

Arminius died in 1609, long before the upheavals caused by his teachings would erupt in full force. In 1610, the disciples of Arminius signed a “Remonstrance” or a petition to the government for protection of their Arminian views. In their Remonstrance, the Arminians put forth their theology finally for the entire world to see. It consisted of five main points:

1. Conditional election. The Remonstrants held to the Molinist view of Middle-Knowledge. Election was conditional on both God’s foreknowledge, and the free will of humans.

2. Universal atonement. The Remonstrants held to the Jesuit/Molinist view on the atonement, as pushed by the Catholics in the Council of Trent. The redemptive blood of Jesus Christ was available to all mankind, and God had not applied or given this atonement to any specific “elect”.

3. Total depravity. The Remonstrants held on to the view of original sin, but believed that since humans were HUMANS, and not sticks or plants, there was enough human left in them to enable them to believe on Christ, or reject Him. In effect, humans were not TOTALLY depraved.

4. Sufficient but resistible grace. The Remonstrants believed that Grace was sufficient to save, but that this Grace could be resisted by man. Thereby man could thwart the will of God (which evidently was to save ALL men) by refusing to be saved.

5. Uncertainty about the perseverance of the saints. The Remonstrants believed that a truly born-again believer could cast off that Grace by certain behavior and subsequently go to Hell.

I will tell you that what you have just read is the common teaching of the Protestant churches throughout the world, with very few exceptions.

I will tell you that what you have just read is the common teaching of the Protestant churches throughout the world, with very few exceptions. I will also tell you that these beliefs, commonly called “Arminian”, are cogent, logical and ultimately WRONG. I say that they are cogent and logical in order to tell you that the only thing WORSE than the Arminian viewpoint, is any viewpoint that attempts to COMPROMISE between these points and the Doctrines of Grace as taught in the Bible. Challenges to the Doctrines of Grace are usually predicated by the attempt to label them as “Calvinism”, although Calvin AND Arminius were gone by the time this Remonstrance was published. What the enemies of Grace term as “Calvinism” or now the more hated “Hyper-Calvinism” was actually just the Gospel response to the Remonstrance of 1610! It is as if a man named Gomer created a new doctrine called GOMERISM, in which he proposed that we all evolved slowly from dirt particles on the eyelids of gnats. If another man named Goober published a biblical challenge to this stupid doctrine, it is as if folks ran about for another 400 years preaching against Gooberism (or worse, Hyper-Gooberism) as a contrivance of that heretic Goober!

In 1611, the true preachers of the Gospel answered with the Contra-Remonstrance of 1611. Robert Godfrey writes, “It it surely ironic that through the centuries there has been so much talk of the ‘five points of Calvinism’ when in fact Calvinists did not originate a discussion of five points. Indeed Calvinism has never been summarized in five points. Calvinism has only offered five responses to the five errors of Arminianism.”

Let us return to our mystery.


John Wesley, the founder of Methodism

The Jesuits were not done with their work. Although they had planted the seeds of their papal tares in the Lord’s ground, they had not yet seen their crop come to fruition. In the 1700’s, the doctrine of Arminianism would be fully embraced and rapidly distributed by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. Wesley wrote a defense of Arminianism entitled, “What is an Arminian”. The folly of Arminianism was also challenged, and rightly so, by that Great Christian thinker Jonathan Edwards, who published his treatise “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” in 1741, a sermon that profoundly trounced the foolishness of Arminian doctrine. Edwards became president of Princeton in 1758, but “mysteriously” died of a smallpox vaccine within weeks (see the oath of the Jesuit above).

In 1826 Dr. Samuel Maitland (librarian for the Archbishop of Canterbury) wrote a book attacking the Reformation. In it, he used the Jesuit Francisco Ribera’s  Ignatius Loyola NEW interpretation of Daniel 9:27 in order to defend the Papacy.

Francisco Ribera (1537 - 1591)

Francisco Ribera (1537 – 1591)

In the 1830’s two movements erupted that would play an important part in the unfolding mystery. One was the “Oxford Movement”. In 1850 John Henry Newman wrote his “Letter on Anglican Difficulties”. In it he revealed that the “Oxford Movement” of which he was a part, had as its goal to finally absorb “the various English denominations and parties” back into the Church of Rome. After publishing a pamphlet endorsing the Jesuit view of Daniel 9:27, Newman joined the Catholic Church and eventually became a Cardinal. The second movement that burgeoned at the time was one led by John Nelson Darby, called the “Plymouth Brethren”.

At about the same time, there appeared a Scottish Presbyterian minister named Edward Irving (the acknowledged forerunner of both the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements). Irving was pastoring the huge Chalcedonian Chapel in London. He had readily accepted the Jesuit prophetic teachings on Daniel 9:27 proposed by Maitland, and the Jesuits Bellarmine and Ribera. Irving began to teach the unique idea of a two-phase return of Christ, the first phase being a secret rapture prior to the rise of the Antichrist. It is rumored that Irving received this prophetic “revelation” when it was given in a vision to a young Scottish girl named Margaret McDonald. McDonald’s prophetic revelation vision is eerily similar to the way that Ignatius Loyola received his vision of warfare against the Protestants.


John Nelson Darby. Darby became the “Father of Dispensationalism”

One of the leaders of the Plymouth Brethren in Plymouth, England was a lawyer named John Nelson Darby. Darby became the “Father of Dispensationalism”, and used the teachings on Daniel 9 by the Jesuits Ribera and Bellarmine as the foundation of his rapture teaching. Darby is a great subject in our study of that poison in the well. Although Darby taught many great things (he insisted on the infallibility of the Bible, and voiced his opposition to the Catholic Church as well as the formalism and manipulation in the Protestant Churches), he had consumed the Jesuit bait, and in turn, he became the bait that would eventually ensnare most of the “Christian” world. Darby visited America 6 times in the late 1800’s and by the close of that century, most of the denominations had imbibed from the same poisonous Jesuit well.


The Incredible Scofield

By 1909, Arminianism and Darbyism had infiltrated most of the denominations in America. That year, Cyrus Scofield published his famous Scofield Bible. That Bible became the predominant Bible used in the seminaries in America. In the margin notes, Scofield readily accepted the dispensationalist teachings of J.N. Darby, and some of the other Jesuit lies discussed here. As can be expected, by the middle of the 1900’s, most of the students graduating from America’s seminaries were well indoctrinated in both the Jesuit lies of Arminius, and the Dispensationalist hogwash of J.N. Darby. By the end of that century, almost every church in America taught some level of Arminianism and the predominant eschatological view was of a future rapture followed by a seven-year tribulation. Both concepts were openly and clearly Jesuit concepts pushed by the Society of Jesus in order to counter the Doctrines of Grace.



Dave Hunt is an author and Bible commentator who has written about 30 books. Hunt was born in 1926 and was raised in J.N. Darby’s “Plymouth Brethren” denomination. Hunt was clearly steeped at an early age in Darby’s dispensationalist views, and he would become an avid advocate of the Francisco Ribera teachings regarding Daniel 9:27. According to Hunt, at some point he became disillusioned with the “cessationist” views of his denomination, and, for a time, he became enamored with the more charismatic views on scripture after reading the works of William Law and Andrew Murray. But sometime during the 1980’s it seems that Hunt had come full circle to a more traditional Darbyist view on scripture.

As can be expected in any conspiracy/mystery, there are twists and turns. In 1994, Dave Hunt wrote a book entitled A Woman Rides A Beast, which taught the traditional reformed views of the Catholic Church as to the woman in Revelation 17. By the middle of the 1990’s, Hunt had become a favorite of both the anti-catholic reformed thinkers, and the Darbyist dispensationalists. Hunt spent most of his time as a “heresy hunter”, cementing his position in the minds of most Protestants as a defender of the faith. Once again, the Jesuit ploy was working. The defenses were down, and Loyola’s Marian war was about to come to fruition.



What Love is This, by Hunt debuted just recently as Hunt’s defense of Arminianism. Sub-titled “Calvinism’s misrepresentation of God”, Hunt pushes the Jesuit agenda to the hilt. In fact, in order to deceive as many Protestants as possible, Hunt uses his Jesuit inspired book to claim that the reformed doctrines of predestination and election are based on Catholic Doctrine! Amazing! But deception wouldn’t be deception unless it worked.

To write the forward of the Book, Hunt chose dispensationalist and rapturist author Tim Lahaye. LaHaye is the millionaire best-selling author of the Left Behind series of books. Known for their hokey theology and horrible scriptural gymnastics, the Left Behind series has roped MILLIONS of people into the Jesuit theory of the end times. LaHaye says this about Hunt’s book:

“Dave Hunt  proves Calvinism is not a Protestant doctrine, but is based in Greek fatalism brought into the church in the fifth century by Augustine, paving the way for the CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of predestination that all but destroyed Christianity and then was picked up by Calvin and presented as Reformed theology.”

Breathtaking. Hunt uses a predictable ploy, and through it he is able to hoodwink most nominal Christians who are too spiritually retarded and lazy to do any research on their own.

Let’s lay it out like Hunt does:

1. Augustine was Catholic, therefore he believed in Catholic doctrines like placing tradition on a level with scripture.

2. Since Augustine believed in Predestination too, then anyone who believes in Predestination is really Catholic.

Stupid, but it works on most people. The fact that the Catholic Church in its Catechisms denounces predestination and rejects the doctrine of election does not phase Hunt one bit. The fact that the Catholic Church murdered and imprisoned the reformers for their belief in election doesn’t factor in either. The fact that Augustine also believed in the Trinity does not cause Dave Hunt to challenge that Biblical doctrine. Like his theological father Jacobus Arminius, it seems that Dave Hunt is not above lying in order to forward his Jesuit doctrines.

So the trap is sprung and the multitudes will fall prey to it. Hunt writes a book decrying Catholicism as the evil woman of Revelation 17. Then Hunt writes another book turning truth on its head and claiming that the doctrine of election is not a truly Christian doctrine, but was concocted by the Catholic Church. Simple enough, right?

Must be, you ought to read my email. I am attacked from both the Catholics and the so-called “remnant” believers because of my insistence on the Doctrines of Grace. I have received at least 20 letters from people who pompously claim that they are neither Arminians NOR Calvinists, but in fact they are somewhere “in the middle”. The Media Scientia (Middle-Knowledge) of that Jesuit monk de Molina has resurfaced from the poison pen of Dave Hunt, and the doctrine has been embraced almost universally.

Not surprisingly, Hunt is also a notable friend and partner with most of those who are deep into the ecumenical movement. His buddy Tim LaHaye, who wrote the forward for his book, is on the board of ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together).

Hunt declares that he is NOT a “five-point” Arminian. He believes in the perseverance of the saints. So we can not only affirm that Dave Hunt is a charlatan and a deceiver, but he is also fundamentally illogical. Apparently Hunt believes that the freewill of man is sovereign over the will of God in salvation, but that subsequent to salvation, God abuses mans freewill by not allowing him to change his mind.

Catholic writer Robert W. Aufill has this to say about Hunt: “Strangely, Hunt  does not realize that his own emphasis on ‘deciding for Christ’ inescapably implies the possibility of co-operating with the grace of justification — a possibility the Reformers constantly condemned but upon which the Catholic Church insists.”

At least with Arminianism, we had a logical and clearly defined enemy. Today, pride and avarice reign. Too many people aren’t willing to study these issues for themselves, so they fall prey to millionaire charlatans with books to peddle.

Loyola’s plan has come to fruition. The Jesuit doctrines of anti-Grace have become the dominant teaching of the churches of the world. The Woman that Rides the Beast, that mother of Harlots, has seen her offspring grow up into maturity. The Whore churches that dot every street corner have the stench of their mother.

Those people who are NOT brain-addled and stupefied in the sugar-water Harlot Churches, are busy decrying the evil of the coming New World Order, while in ignorance they embrace the very doctrines of Antichrist.

It is the Ultimate Conspiracy, and if it were possible, it would deceive even the very elect. Do Catholics go to heaven? You better find out, because odds are you are one.

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,
Michael Bunker


Dave Hunt’s What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God – A Book Review by Phil Johnson FREE MP3 (“My advice to young Calvinists is to learn your theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors, not from blogs and discussion forums on the Internet,” writes Phil Johnson.)

Calvinism on Trial – A Response to Dave Hunt’s Attack on the Doctrines of Grace by Phil Johnson

Dave Hunt vs. Charles Haddon Spurgeon by James White (Dave Hunt Refuses to Admit His Error Regarding Spurgeon)

The Ultimate Conspiracy – Dave Hunt and the Jesuit Attempt to Hijack the Christian Faith by Michael Bunker (Proof that Dave Hunt [in his book What Love is This?] is teaching theJesuit-inspired heresy of Arminianism).
Free at:

Blinded By Tradition by James White – An Open Letter to Dave Hunt Regarding His Attack Upon the Reformation, What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God

Dave Hunt’s What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God – A Book Review by Phil Johnson (SWRB blog)


What Theology is This? Dave Hunt’s Misrepresentation of God and Calvinism (A Book Review of Dave Hunt’s What Love is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God).

More free books on Calvinism (the Sovereignty of God, TULIP, etc.)

Still Waters Revival Books (New Web Site) – Calvinism and the Sovereignty of God – CALVINISM HD COLLECTION

Due to the social nature of, it may contain copyrighted material should we not be able to get in contact with the original writer to obtain written permission to use the information. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit, to those who have expressed a prior interest in participating in a community of individuals interested in our methodologies, for comment and non-profit educational purposes.

11 thoughts on “The Ultimate Conspiracy – Dave Hunt and the Jesuit Attempt to Hijack the Christian Faith

    • Simon

      Of course we cannot point to the man and say: “He was not a saved Christian”, that would be a very foolish thing to do. However, his own soteriology, his own reliance on good works and a free will based salvation, is an outright denial of the fact that man is saved by grace alone, which is therefore a denial of biblical doctrine. That represents a far greater problem than his bad eschatology.

      The fact that he did not like Calvinists is really irrelevant, I suppose every person is entitled to their own pet likes and dislikes regarding other men or man-made doctrines. What is relevant, is that he did not like a large part of the truth in the Word of God, and he spent many valuable years opposing the truth.


  1. I Knew it! I knew he was setting us up with “the seduction of Christianity” followed by “A woman Rides the Beast” then this broadside at Calvinism. Who takes on the plain word of God? Who takes on Spurgeon? Insanity plain insanity. I read a quote about Martin Luthers wife how difficult life was before her death. She said something to the effect that she must become like a tick embedded in a sheep (Christ) and hang on for dear life. Translated in 2013 I must hang on like a pitbull to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and His inerrant word and NOT LET GO! Remember how Chuck Colson died- stood in the pulpit and stroked out- something like 10 years to the day his book “catholics and Evangelicals together” was published. May I quote Spurgeon? “He is the greatest fool who thinks the Holy Spirit is mistaken- at your peril you do this”


  2. Grant,
    Thank you for your response. I’ve included my name, hope it helps. I actually posted the comment twice, was wondering if it was deleted or something, but apparently is was filtered out twice. I did not mean to attack you, you’re website or Prof Malan in any way. Just as I am reading up on Dave Hunt, I also came across Prof Malan, James White, John MacArthur your website etc. I want to have a better understanding of things.

    For example some say Calvinism is wrong, others say if you are not Calvinists, you must be Arminian, some believe Catholics are perfect etc. I am trying to understand the difference between certain issues.

    Now obviously you are a Calvinist, who believes in the doctrines of grace. Prof Malan is not, and Prof Malan also believes you can lose your salvation. You say this is of negligible importance, but I don’t think it is. Several Calvinist blogs openly criticises Prof Malan on his theology.

    Salvation Calvinist believe, and salvation Arminians believe are two different things. Prof Malan almost lean towards Arminian, because you have to work towards your salvation, yet your website endorse his ministry. So this is not negligible issues, it cuts to the core of Christianity.

    There are many articles on Prof Malan’s website that teaches exactly the opposite of what the articles on your website teaches. It just seems strange to me that you would attack Dave Hunt and yet you let Prof Malan go. I do not see James White or John McArthur posting links on their websites to Dave Hunt’s ministry and vice versa.

    Actually I must ask who is correct in their theology, the doctrines of grace you are promoting, or Prof Malan’s teaching. Dave Hunt and Prof Malan say Calvinism is wrong, both refute it Biblically and you say Calvinism is biblical teaching. Which is right? How do lost souls get saved? If I ask both you and Prof Malan this question, will I get the same answer? No, there are huge differences in your theologies. Yet you say its negligible to ask this type of questions.

    I don’t have your biblical knowledge. I am searching for answers, but when you post a link to Prof Malan’s website, and yet “expose” Dave Hunt, it smells of double standards. Many Calvinist, and Calvinist preachers do not agree with Prof Malan’s teachings and warns fellow Calvinist against him, yet your website, for the love of His truth, promotes links to his ministry.

    Best regards


    • Jon
      Thank you for re-posting your comment. My knowledge of the technicalities surrounding blogsites and digital media is fairly basic, I rely on my IT advisors and others when these things happen.

      For example some say Calvinism is wrong, others say if you are not Calvinists, you must be Arminian, some believe Catholics are perfect etc. I am trying to understand the difference between certain issues.

      It certainly is important to understand the differences between certain issues, however, we cannot base our understanding primarily on what “others” say. There are far too many who disagree on doctrinal matters, and some of the most academically astute, well publicized, outspoken and convincing theologians are often those who are furthest from the truth. In order for us to recognize the truth, we first and foremost need to gain our understanding from the only infallible source, which is the Word of God. Once we have prayerfully come to know what Scripture says, we find that what men have to say, becomes far less important to our understanding.

      Now obviously you are a Calvinist, who believes in the doctrines of grace.

      “Calvinist” is a nickname, which I don’t care for much. John Calvin was not responsible for providing the doctrines of salvation as laid out in Scripture, that was God’s doing. Calvinism is no better than Arminianism or Romanism, if that Calvinism is without Christ. Calvinism has no more to do with salvation than Arminianism or Romanism does. Christians are not those who have been converted to Calvinism. Christians are not concerned with converting unbelievers to Calvinism. Christians want to see sinners saved by the grace of God, converted by the power of God to Jesus Christ the Lord.

      …Prof Malan is not, and Prof Malan also believes you can lose your salvation. You say this is of negligible importance, but I don’t think it is. Several Calvinist blogs openly criticises Prof Malan on his theology.

      It is not uncommon that Christians differ on certain doctrinal aspects. Even the Apostles had disagreements, which are documented in Scripture. We are all sinners and we all have imperfect understanding. We are all equally reliant on the Grace of God alone for our salvation, which is of ultimate importance. You say there are Calvinist blogs which choose to openly criticize Prof Malan and other personalities, and that is their prerogative and their decision alone. There are also Arminian blogs which openly criticize Prof Malan and others. I cannot speak for the decisions of others.

      …yet your website endorse his ministry.

      I did answer this in my previous comment: We do not “endorse” Prof Johan Malan, as much as we do not “endorse” any man, we do agree with him on certain issues, regarding which he has done some excellent work, which we share with our readers.

      It just seems strange to me that you would attack Dave Hunt and yet you let Prof Malan go

      I also dealt with this previously: It would be totally illogical to make applicable to one theologian, what is relevant to another, simply because there are certain similarities in their thoughts. There exist similarities in thought within diametrically opposed religions such as Islam and Hinduism, yet the same critique does not necessarily apply to both. The issue is far more complex than that. If it were that simple, not one single post-apostolic theological thinker would escape being in constant error on all matters.

      Yet you say its negligible to ask this type of questions.

      Important questions should all be referred to Scripture, not to what men have to say. The opinions of men will always reflect differences and remain negligible when compared to the instruction held in Scripture. The differences in our theologies and questions related to those differences are of negligible value, and are the concern of the parties to the difference. That which is of great importance, is what Scripture says regarding the difference between the eternal abode of believers and unbelievers.

      …and yet “expose” Dave Hunt

      I have already dealt with this previously: We did not “expose” Dave Hunt, he did so himself by publishing his loud opposition to Scripture and a whole lot of unfounded claptrap additionally.

      Many Calvinist, and Calvinist preachers do not agree with Prof Malan’s teachings…

      As I have said above, I cannot speak for “many Calvinist, and Calvinist preachers”. I do not represent them and they are at liberty to agree or disagree with Prof Malan. As I have said, there are also Arminians and Arminian sources who do not agree with Prof Malan. I cannot speak for them, either. As you seem to disagree with both the Calvinist and Prof Malan’s position, these observable facts should be of no significance to you or your relationship with Christ.


  3. Grant,
    Here is my first comment again.
    The last couple of months I’ve been reading up a bit on Dave Hunt and it is always good to read opposing views like the article you posted.
    I see on your website you also endorse Prof Johan Malan. Wouldn’t he fall into the same category as Dave Hunt? I read an article Prof Malan wrote where he also refutes Calvinism, and it seems most of his thinking is in line with Dave Hunt.
    Here is the link to the article
    I think if one expose Dave Hunt one should expose Prof Malan as well, yet despite Prof Malan clearly stating his views on Calvinism, you promote his teaching on your website.
    Your response will be appreciated.


    • Thank you for commenting.
      I will respond briefly, as the subject is literally of negligible importance.

      1) I would warn against you wasting your time reading up too much on Dave Hunt, but you are at liberty to make your own choices.

      2) We do not “endorse” Prof Johan Malan, as much as we do not “endorse” any man, we do agree with him on certain issues, regarding which he has done some excellent work, which we share with our readers.

      3) We are well aware of the article you are referring to, and we have discussed the subject with Prof Malan.

      4) We did not “expose” Dave Hunt, he did so himself by publishing his loud opposition to Scripture and a whole lot of unfounded claptrap additionally.

      5) It would be totally illogical to make applicable to one theologian, what is relevant to another, simply because there are certain similarities in their thoughts. There exist similarities in thought within diametrically opposed religions such as Islam and Hinduism, yet the same critique does not necessarily apply to both. The issue is far more complex than that. If it were that simple, not one single post-apostolic theological thinker would escape being in constant error on all matters.

      6) If you don’t agree with the work of someone such as Prof Malan, or any other author for that matter, the answer to your problem is as simple as not reading work with his name attached to it.


  4. Grant,

    This was your response to Simon:
    “Of course we cannot point to the man and say: “He was not a saved Christian”, that would be a very foolish thing to do. However, his own soteriology, his own reliance on good works and a free will based salvation, is an outright denial of the fact that man is saved by grace alone, which is therefore a denial of biblical doctrine. That represents a far greater problem than his bad eschatology. ”

    Isn’t this the same as Prof Malan’s believes? Prof Malan, apart from the above believes, also believes you can lose your salvation, where Dave Hunt believed once saved always saved. Would you refer a young immature Christian to Prof Malan for biblical guidance?

    The fact here is, either Dave Hunt’s and Prof Malan’s teachings are unbiblical, which will make them false prophets, or the doctrines of grace are false teachings. It cannot go both ways. The way to salvation is two different roads here. There are only one road that lead to Christ.

    Best regards


    • Jon

      Your questions are repetitive and I have spent reasonable time in providing answers to them. You are free to reach your own conclusions, and you clearly have already done so from other sources. It is not my concern to try to convince you otherwise. It is pointless to create obstacles, division and unprofitable quarrels about what these men, or this site, does or doesn’t believe. You are free to agree or disagree with what any of them say, or with what we say. Uphold Scripture only.

      You have access to the work of the people which you are referring to and I would suggest you appeal to those sources to provide you with the answers which you are looking for. I cannot speak on their behalf. You also have access to Scripture and you should use that as a measuring stick for comparison against the work of Prof Malan, Dave Hunt, John Calvin, James White, etc.

      Grace to you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s