Debating Calvinism : Five Points, Two Views

Rating:
Summary: A Scholar Vs. A Preacher
Review: Dave Hunt and James White both love the Lord. Both have a heart for the truth. Both a heart to see people saved, people freed from the bondage of legalism and cults. However, this is where they agree. When it comes to theology, they seem far apart.

This book is a great book of debate. In fact, reading the book will make you feel as if you have just heard Dave Hunt and James White truly debate in person. Both get to give their arguements for their positions on the five points of Calvinism, both get a response to the other, and both get a counter response to the other's response.

In the book, Dave Hunt reminds me of a good old preacher who loves Jesus and truly wants to communicate God's truth. However, his knowledge is limited compared to the skilled theologian in Dr. James White. While both are kind to one another, White clearly presents his case for Calvinism much stronger than Hunt.

Buy this book, sit back and enjoy fun reading as two brothers in Christ debate the five points of Calvinism.

Rating:
Summary: Christian Book Previews
Review: Debating Calvinism by Dave Hunt and James White is one of the latest contributions to a growing number of books exploring the differences between Calvinist and Arminian theology. For Hunt and White, this book represents the culmination of several years of repartee in print, on radio and in person. White wrote The Potter's Freedom in 2000 as a reaction to a book by Norm Geisler, Chosen But Free. Hunt's book, What Love Is This? followed in 2002 as a response to The Potter's Freedom. Other authors have also weighed in on the subject in the past year, and of course, one doesn't need to look too far to find that this topic has generated volumes through the centuries.

The book is formatted in the style of an oral debate, with a chapter each of affirmation, response, defense and final remarks. The points covered are basically those of the "five points" of Calvinism's TULIP: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Some readers may find this style a bit difficult to follow; I frequently had to flip back and forth between chapters to see for myself exactly which quote or point was being referenced, but this was not too troubling.

I found James White's material to be consistently thoughtful; his tone was generally gracious, but he dealt with the topics in an even, measured fashion, and his arguments were cohesive. Dave Hunt's tone struck me as abrasive and sarcastic from the opening paragraph. His tone was erratic; at times he was able to make his point clearly, with unemotional, sequential argumentation. But this was not the norm. In places it seems as though he is deliberately trying to miss the point, nowhere more so than in the discussion of assurance and eternal security in chapter fourteen. I was also disturbed by his assertions that those who hold to Calvinist views of election are unconcerned for the lost. He has only to read the works of the men he accuses - Piper, MacArthur, Pink, Sproul, Spurgeon and White -- to be ashamed of such a claim.

Because of the repeated charges of misquotation and misrepresentation (leveled by both authors), a careful reader would almost wish to have every reference source cited at hand. I have read many of the books mentioned, and tried to go back to each quote for context, but gave up due to time constraints. A complete bibliography and Scripture reference guide at the end of the book would be a huge bonus. For anyone wanting to seriously consider the debate over Calvinism, this book will not be the final word, but an excellent starting place for further study. - Pam Glass, Christian Book Previews.com

Rating:
Summary: A Good AND A Poor Book At The Same Time
Review: Here is what you'll get, if you purchase this book:

James White writes a concise, clear summarization of Calvinism, with very little of his usual condescension or sarcasm. He provides small, digestible slices of Greek hermeneutics, grammar analysis, and history. This is a better book than "The Potter's Freedom" to give to a newcomer on the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, because it is not as technical or philosophically heavy.

Dave Hunt's chapters will give you a definite feeling for the typical argument of non-Methodist Arminians.

However, here is why it's also a poor book: Dave Hunt is so illogical, so non-linear, and so invincibly stubborn, that he is just a poor opponant for White. Even after writing his pro-Arminian book "What Love Is This?", Hunt still shows that he has no concept of what Calvinism actually teaches.

In his first positive chapter, meant to affirm what he believes, he chooses to spend the entire chapter smearing John Calvin, still playing the guilt-by-association game by making Calvin out to have been a closet Roman Catholic. It never occurs to Dave Hunt that this book was supposed to be about the generally-Reformed doctrine of salvation, not the Presbyterian view of church and the sacraments. But Hunt's goal is to make you just hate Calvin as a person so much that you will automatically reject Calvin's ideas. The principle that an idea can be true standing on its own, and isn't proven by whether one of its advocates was a nice guy, never seems to occur to Hunt.

Hunt wastes all kinds of time kvetching about Calvin's views of the sacraments. But since James White is a Baptist and not a Presbyterian, AND because this book is supposed to be about the Christian doctrine of salvation (not the Christian doctrine of the sacraments, or church-state relations), Hunt's incessant complaints against Calvin are totally irrelevant.

White repeatedly and correctly points this out in his after-chapter responses, but Hunt never acknowledges it. Hunt never analyzes texts, barely responds to White's actual points, and fills up his responses with wild claims that White "in his chapter didn't produced even one verse that shows..." whatever it is they're debating at that point in the book, while you (the reader) know that the only thing White did was cite and analyze verses.

The issue is, what those verses mean? Hunt never shows that he knows how to do Bible interpretation. So as the book moves forward Hunt comes across as so knee-jerk and stubborn as to have lost his senses.

So from that standpoint, you'll wish the publishers had found some competent student of Scripture to debate James White. Even if it had been someone that no one ever heard of, any professional Arminian theologian from a conservative seminary or Bible college would have been better. One of my former systematic-theology professors from Columbia could have done a bang-up job.

So here's what you get: (a) A nice, concise summary of Calvinism from White, useful for people who want to know what calvinism teaches (b) a nice, concise summary of Calvinism's critiques of Arminianism, for those who want to think critically, and (c) a pretty good feel for the typical, popular-level, Baptist-type anti-Calvinism you might run into anywhere, from Dave Hunt.

But what you won't get is an intellectually respectable defense of Arminianism. Hunt's material is so loaded with guilt-by-association, slander, emotionalism, preachiness, unresponsiveness to White's actual claims, and an "all-over-the-place" ramblingness, that you will wish that Multnomah Publishing had gotten someone else to represent the Arminian viewpoint.

Rating:
Summary: One Time Faith?
Review: I could not help but notice that James White refers to surface level believers on page 71 and that at the end of the chapter there is a footnote (#5)which says "These men had a one time faith rather than the normative ongoing faith that in John's gospel signals true salvation." If Mr. White believes that faith is a gift from God given only to the elect and which follows regeneration, how were these men able to have even "one time faith"? If no one seeks God or is the slightest bit interested in God before regeneration how does one become, or better yet why would one become, a surface level believer? In his comments on John 8:42-47 Mr. White suggests that "cannot hear" means "inability to hear." Again, how do people become surface level believers with a one time faith if they have a complete inability to hear? On page 64, Mr. White cites the London Confession as follows: As a natural (unspiritual) man he is dead in sin and altogether opposed to what is good. Hence he is not able, by any strength of his own to turn himself to God, or even to prepare himself to turn to God." If all people before salvation have a mindset hostile to God and the complete inability to recognize a need for God, what are we to make of Lydia and Cornelius?

Acts 16:14 One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. NIV

Lydia is referred to in the past tense as being a worshiper of God prior to the Lord opening her heart to respond to Paul's message.

Acts 10:1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. NIV

Cornelius and all his family are referred to as devout and God-fearing prior to being saved. We know this because of what Peter says in Chapter 11.

Acts 11:13 He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. 14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.' NIV

Cornelius and his family were not saved until Peter brought his message because their salvation is referred to as a future event when Cornelius had his vision. Lydia and Cornelius would appear to be exceptions to the London Confession quoted by Mr. White.

This book probably presents both sides of the issue well-enough, but I wish the tone between debaters was more gracious. In my opinion this debate is unnecessary if we choose to see divine sovereignty and human responsibilty as simply another paradox that we cannot fully comprehend like the Trinity. Paradoxes create tension and we seek to reduce the tension by weighing one side of the paradox as greater than the other. Calvinists do not struggle with the paradox because they resolve everything on the side of God's sovereignty. Arminians do not struggle with the paradox because they resolve everything on the side of human responsibility. Perhaps we were not meant to solve the paradox, but to accept it as a mystery beyond our comprehension.

Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out! NIV

Both authors do well enough defending their positions but I don't think they ever approached the topic from a standpoint of truly reasoning together and coming to a better understanding of the other's position.

Rating:
Summary: Lop-sided Debate
Review: I was excited to start reading this book when it arrived. However, upon reading it my excitement was quickly extinguished. Simply put, Hunt is in no position to appropriately respond to White's affirmation of Calvinism. I'm not sure Hunt even fully understands or has thought out his own position much less that of White's. Thus, the result is a smorgasbord of logical fallacies and misrepresentations of White's position. This is easily seen in the argument and is somewhat frustrating during the reading. I kept saying, "Dave, are you going to respond to what James said or not?" Thus, the book probably isn't very good for really coming to full knowledge of the Arminian position. A better combination would be "Chosen but Free" by Norm Geisler and "The Potter's Freedom" by James White. Geisler's argument is much better than Hunt's and he is a much more consistent thinker and more knowledgeable of the Reformed position.

However, White does do a good job of presenting his side. Thus, anyone that is interested in Reformed theology may be interested in this one. In the process, White gives many demonstrations of exactly how to refute the Arminian position.

Rating:
Summary: It's about time
Review: James White gives a fairly good historical and biblical argument of defending Calvinism. While I will have to agree with the other reviewer that Dave Hunt is over his head. I am a Calvinist. Having come from a Baptist background and now in the Protestant Reformed Churches of America I know first hand that mainstream Christianity does every thing they can to keep their members away from this debate. So their members are largely in ignorance. All the while pointing to the world claiming moral relativism, they are practicing doctrinal relativism. To them it's a gospel buffet pick and choose your gospel. Yet the bible teaches us it does matter what church I go to and do I believe in a God that is sovereign over man or one that reacts to man. These are two different Gods. One giving God all the credit for salvation and the other saying man can do the WORK of choosing God. This book is a good starting point yet keep to the scriptures. I would also recommend the three forms of unity ie. (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession of Faith, and the Canons of Dordt) to get a real perspective of what the reformers thought, taught and were willing to die for. My Church the PRCA holds to them and as far as I know is the only Church that has not changed since its origin in 1922. The bottom line is the true doctrine is not afraid to stand up to imitators for there is only one truth, one faith, and one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. So let God be true and every man be found a liar. Maybe this book will cause a few Christians to stop focusing on what God can do for MAN and begin to learn more about the attributes of God taught in the scriptures, yet as a Calvinist God will have to work in the heart first. Two recommended books are Saved By Grace by Ronald Cammenga; and Ronald Hanko, and The Voice of Our Fathers by Homer C. Hoeksema.

Rating:
Summary: Not impressed
Review: This book is a tremendous disappointment. Neither James White nor Dave Hunt do a particularly note worthy job in this debate. I feel that this may be the direct result of the word limit in White's case but Hunt seems to know very little about the issue at hand. Dave Hunt's presentations and rebuttals were childish at their best. He never addresses the issues raised by White but instead continues to repeat the same things that he has said in reference to calvinism. This work does not bring me to the conclusion that Hunt is well versed in this issuse but is instead someone who has picked up a new hobby. White on the other hand deals with what he actually does address with style and care, as is to be expected of a man of his intelligence. The biggest problem in this book though is that White allows many of Hunt's claims go unaddressed which is terrible in a debate and were Hunt actually paying attention to what White is saying instead of mis-representing calvinists by paraphrasing with elipses, White would not have done nearly as well as he did. I like this book because I think that it shows not simply the intellectual divide between White and Hunt but demonstrates (this may be a stretch) the desire of calvinists to do real and complete exegesis in opposition to many semi-palageans who simply proof-text and ignore greater scriptural contexts.

Rating:
Summary: A Very One Sided Debate
Review: While Dave Hunt is most certainly not the most qualified person to debate Calvinism in print, he asked for open correction with his other bad book "What Love is This?". Debating Calvinism is a 1/2 of a very good book.

James White is patient when wronged in this book. One will note that Dave Hunt continually calls Calvinism a "libel on god's character", accuses it in general and James White in particular of "turning the Bible into a charade", slanders the character of John Calvin, mocks Dr. White for turning to the actual inspired Greek text to shed light on our English translations, and accuses Dr. White of not providing "one scripture" to subtsantiate his position. The humor of the charge is compunded only by the fact that it usually follows Hunt's rejection of the verses Dr. White does in fact bring forth in defense of Calvinism. All of this being the case, I think you will see that the invective only flows one way.

There are numerous factual and argumentative errors in Dave Hunt's portion of the book. Dave Hunt continues to lack understanding of Charles Spurgeon. Hunt has no idea what the context of Spurgeon's sermons were. Spurgeon makes comments urging men to plead with the lost to be saved (he says this in opposition to the hyper-Calvinism of his day), and Hunt somehow thinks Spurgeon is preaching against Calvinism itself! Hunt combines quotes from B.B. Warfield that are 300 pages apart with a simple elipses. He accuses Augustine of equating Scripture and Tradition when many Protestant scholars have shown this to not be the case at all. Dave Hunt devotes one whole chapter to slandering Calvin and Augustine personally, and he somehow thinks this changes what the Sciptures actually teach. He says that the command to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength (Deut 6:5) is the first commandment of the decalogue, when in fact the command to have no other God before Yahweh is the first commandment of the decalogue the chapter before (Deuteronomy 5). Hunt makes 85 references to the "many scriptures/hundreds of scriptures/numerous scriptures/a plethora of scriptures" that he accuses White of ignoring. Hunt fails to either name these scriptures, however (In Hunt's defense, he does occasionally say something like "Here are a few of the lierally hundreds of scriptures..." and then he quotes 4 or 5. But even when he does so, he doesn't explain them, how they are relevant, or respond to what Calvinist woulld say about them). Hunt takes the cake with a 3rd hand citation of Bultmann and claims him as a Calvinist.

White's portions of the book are tightly argued and stick close to the text of Scripture. I found the chapter dealing with irresisitible grace and the nature of regeneration to be wonderfully easy to read and grasp and solidly based on the text.

I would recommend people buy and read this book. The argument for Calvinism is solid, and the responses to the worn out Arminian arguments are respectful and persuasive.