Most Helpful Customer Reviews
141 of 173 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Good AND A Poor Book At The Same Time, March 15, 2004
This review is from: Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views (Paperback)
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
29 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Synergistic, April 2, 2004
This review is from: Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views (Paperback)
White offers a narrow but deep argument for his position and careful rebuttle of select points. Hunt offers a more shallow argument but in doing so touches on many points. It's my opinion that Hunt entered into this debate with a preconception of Calvinism which is inaccurate and as a result spends much of his time striking at charictatures. White draws attention to this but time and again the Arminian perspective attacks points that never emerge from the Calvinist camp. Regardless, Hunt and White have produced a work that is entertaining and yet informative. Hunt's view on freewill is interesting though he does not, in my opinion make a very strong case for it. White presents the classical Calvinist doctrins with equal zeal. Unintended is that this book gives you a debate to study. Argumentation developes, is struck down, rebuilt and the reader appealed to directly to consider the argumentation methods of the opponent. This synergy of the two authors gives this book unique appeal in my eyes. Of course, everyone want's to know "who won," to which I believe it is White. I think that Hunt's breadth of argumentation robbed him of any depth and so if there was a solid argument to be established, it was never realized. While Hunt's rehtoric might be more appealing it does not contain White who repeatedly topples core arguments of his opponent and is allowed to retain most/all of his own core arguments.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good Introduction, But an Imbalanced Selection of Authors, July 18, 2008
This review is from: Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views (Paperback)
Other solid reviews have been made of the ill-fated choice of Dave Hunt to represent the Arminian views on the so-called 'Five Points of Calvinism'. As another reviewer stated, I find James White a good selection here and, unlike his normal writings, he is well-controlled and even-handed in his presentation and dialogue with Hunt (for the most part). I think James White gives a clear exposition on consistent, Reformed Calvinism. For this alone the book is worth the buy.
White is consistent in his Reformed exposition of scripture, as well as his responses to Dave Hunt. Though I do not essentially agree with White, I find him clear in what he is saying as he is not putting up a smoke and mirrors routine. This is true, consistent Reformed teaching, not the so-called 'Moderate Calvinism' which then attempts to be played off as a true expression of Calvinism. Post-Reformation Calvinism was explained in clarity by the Westminster Divines and solidified in the Westminster Confession of Faith. This Confession would not agree with the 'Moderate Calvinism' of recent history for it essentially is not Calvinism. I applaud White for his clarity on this area.
Dave Hunt, on the other hand, raises the common theological disagreements with Calvinistic theology and exegesis, and more importantly, the philosophical problems with Calvinism. However, I certainly wish Hunt would have spent more time on each area just mentioned, especially the philosophical dynamic. Hunt is not thorough enough in any of these areas. He engages more in the historical issues of the lives and legacies of Augustine and Calvin than essentially responding to White. Hunt spends too much time with emotional arguments that lack stronger substance. Though not a Calvinist, I feel these criticisms of Hunt are justified. Hunt lacks both depth and focus in his dialogue with James White. White calls him on this numerous times, yet Hunt consistently side-steps the issues and continues his polemics and ad hominem attacks on historical figures in Augustinian/Calvinistic traditions and misses key opportunities to convince his reader that an 'Arminian' stance on these issues can be well-supported biblically.
However, this is not to say I think scripture lacks support for these arguments, on the contrary, I feel it does support some of the historical disagreements. Areas such as the decree(s), election (though nuanced in my understanding), irresistible grace, and limited atonement. Unfortunately, Hunt wastes valuable space using guilt-by-association methods and other poor polemics when all he needed to do was be fair-minded, biblical, and exegete the passages convincingly. He loses a lot of ground because of his failure to do this well. I also essentially wanted to agree with White (who I don't care much for in the area of debate because of his attitudes and style of engagement) in the end because he was less combative and tried to show more exegesis and biblical thinking (albeit Reformed) to convince his audience of the 'Doctrines of Grace'. I feel he fell quite short to convince me, but he presented his convictions with a solid presentation.
Overall, I could only recommend this book as an introductory-level work for those seeking to understand a thoroughly well-versed Calvinist teach on the 'Doctrines of Grace'. I wish the publishers would have obtained a well-versed, highly respected Arminian theologian to dialogue with James White. Having an Arminian scholar like Jack Cottrell or Thomas Oden would have been extremely beneficial in this book and probably would have made this book outstanding. In the end, Hunt, though possessing passion for the Lord, is a solid apologist, but more for the Christian Worldview among the chaos of Pluralism, Relativism, and the non-Christian Cults. He is not a theologian, and someone from this mold is much-needed to dialogue with a theologian and scholar from the Reformed position on soteriology. I feel the publishers missed a special opportunity to expose many to solid and consistent Arminian views on the Doctrines of Grace. This was truly unfortunate.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
