Customer Reviews

Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(21)
3 star:		(19)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

The premise of this book is interesting: Two prominent Christian authors, who have very different theological views, publishing a book together in an attempt to clearly articulate the opposing sides of the age old debate about the system of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) known as "Calvinism". The book is presented as a written-word formal debate, where each author writes half the book. Each point is presented, followed by a response, a defense, and closing remarks from each writer. The debate was over what Calvinists call the "doctrines of grace", known by the acronym TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.

White presents the Calvinist viewpoint, while Hunt represents an (though certainly not the only) opposing view. From a debating standpoint, the two were not a good match. White is by far the stronger debater, as Hunt rarely (if ever) responds directly to White's points. Regardless of one's personal views of Calvinism, I believe an objective judge of debates would have to award the "win" to White.

That being said, my personal views on soteriology were neither changed nor strengthened by this debate. I can't say that I recommend the book, though White's explanations of the five points of Calvinism are a good introduction to the doctrines of grace for someone who may never have given them consideration.

I had to take off one star in my rating, because this book is a bit frustrating at times. But if you are sincerely seeking to understand the true nature of God, this book may give you a good idea of what each side is teaching. I recommend that people read this book for themselves before believing any of the accusations that have been made here or anywhere else.

Some folks have said that it takes years of study before you can understand Calvinism, and this may be true...but I would like to remind each reader of some important biblical facts: when the Apostle Paul was writing to young Timothy, he wrote "from a CHILD thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15).

Furthermore, Jesus also made it clear that He has a message which even a child can understand (See Matthew 18:3-4 and Mark 10:14-15). That said, I hope it will become clear to each reader that the message of the Bible is not so complicated...it only seems complicated when man complicates it.

I think that the sincere reader will find that there is simplicity in Christ (See 2 Corinthians 11:3). With these simple facts in mind, I think the sincere reader of this book will find the simple truth he or she is searching for.

I do not want to cause division here, and I am not asking you to take Dave Hunt's word for it, I am not asking you to take James White's word for it, and I am not even asking you to take my word...I am only asking you to take God's word for it, because God's word is the final word. I am asking each reader to humble yourself before the Lord if you know that you haven't, and read this book in simple child-like faith.

I am asking you to be like the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11, who "received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so".

I am a simple minded guy, but I believe that the Bible was written for common people. That should be clear from some of the Scriptures that I have shared here. May God use this book to bless everyone who is sincerely seeking His true nature in simple child-like faith and humility.

Although perhaps inevitable, it saddens me to see these two great writers sqaure off in this, at times, uncharitable debate. I am a huge fan of both of them, especially their apologetic work addressing Roman Catholicism and Mormonism. Dave Hunt also showed great discernment and guts when he came out very early (first?) against all that Y2K hysteria a few years back. The topic of Calvinism (Reformed Theology) tends to be divisive as the 5 points reinforce each other leading to an all or nothing system. James White tends to lose all perspective when defending the Calvinist points. For example, to compare Dave Hunt's position on grace, the one held by most evangelicals, to the Roman Catholic one seems absurd to me. I don't know how intelligent you must be to truly understand the Reformed position. How many people actually understand this viewpoint? Although, I have studied their arguments I guess I am in the same boat as Dave Hunt, because I truly do not get it. For example, how can White say the sufficiency of God's grace is diminished by our "decision" to follow Christ. We don't do any of the actual work in our salvation. We only agree to let God have His way with us. How can this be compared to the Roman Catholic system of grace plus works. It is as if a mechanic (Jesus) came to your house and offered to fix your car (Soul) for free. Clearly you have nothing to boast about as the mechanic does all the work, you pay nothing, and even have no real idea what was wrong. Yet, even this degree of participation would be deemed an assualt on God's sovereignty. I don't get it.

Both guys do a good job explaining their interpretation for the most part. Even though Dave gave alot of Biblical references for his points, I sometimes felt like he needed to give more. I could easily have given Biblical references for his points where he left a Biblical explanation out. Dave's explanation of mans free will seems to fit in with what the Bible teaches as I study this more. James started out with the traditional creeds as if he were quoting scripture. However, James did a very good job of explaining the Reformed Evangelical point of view and did try to explain his view with scripture.
I think that Dr. White will appeal more to the scholarly with his good debate tactics. I think that Mr. Hunt will appeal more to the lay person with his easiy understandable explanations of Biblical references. I easily understood both men and their arguments. I got the book because my Sunday School teacher is Reformed Evangelical and we are debating the subject in Sunday School.
I am glad to see this kind of debate in a book. If you are willing to study this subject matter I recomend this book rather the many others that just give one side of the argument. Though sometimes a bad subject for Christians to debate, it can be debated with love and respect. I have more love and respect for my Sunday School teacher now, than before we started to debate this subject. However, reading some of these reviews, I can see that some people seem to have become offended by the book and attack the author they dont agree with. Just keep your Bible open, and your mind open to God when you read this book.

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.

The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism has exploded recently, becoming a hot topic that sharply divides whole groups of Christians. In an attempt to openly discuss and present both sides, Multnomah Publishers presents a debate in written form in which James White (author of "The Potter's Freedom") presents the affirmative statement regarding Calvinism, while Dave Hunt ("The Seduction of Christianity" and "What Love Is This?") represents the negative team. Each author is given seven chapters. In each chapter, the author presents a First Constructive argument, the opposing author enters a First Constructive rebuttal, and so forth (resulting in five "units" within each chapter).

If "Arminian" refers to that system of theology that counters Calvin's Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace, and Calvin's definition of God's sovereignty, then I guess I'm an Arminian. Given all that Arminius stood for, however, during his lifetime, I prefer to be called a non-Calvinist.

Bearing that in mind, and also that I've worked for and support Dave Hunt's ministry and had dinner at his house more than once, I will concede that this is not Hunt's best showing. But frankly, neither is it White's moment of glory. (In fact, both authors were supposed to secure two accolades for the back cover. Hunt got Tim LaHaye and Chuck Smith, but no one would go to bat for White after reading the manuscript.)

As a book, it is both interesting and frustrating. As charged, Dave does not always directly respond to an affirmation by Mr. White. Sometimes repeatedly. I don't know who proposed the book and invited the authors, but it does read as though Hunt took up someone else's invitation and used the opportunity to share his views, whether they spoke directly to the debate at all times or not.

I've read previous reviews here, and a repeated charge is that Hunt does not speak to White's affirmations. In return, White does a deft job of skirting Hunt's statements as well.

For example, Hunt has to be told several times that Calvinists do NOT deny that man has a Will. But White never once adequately responds to Dave's query about how the Calvinist view of Sovereignty fits in with the fact that God IS Love.

Hunt has to be told repeatedly that Calvinists do not believe in predestination to Hell (rather, the Calvinist view would be described as preterition -- a passing over, not an active condemnation). But White never seems to grasp Hunt's (and the general Arminian) assertion that God IN His sovereignty (not in spite of) gave Man the choice to accept or reject salvation. White repeatedly calls the doctrine of Free Will an assault on God's Sovereignty despite the fact that a sovereign God could jolly well give man a choice if He wanted, and man would have still nothing to boast about, because he in no way wrested the choice from God's hands.

Hunt does go for the scatter-shot method, but why this is a criticism I don't know, as he uses it to show the overwhelming Biblical support for the boundless love of God that calls to all sinners and bids them come to Him.

It was interesting to hear both sides; it was also sometimes very, very frustrating. I wanted to have both of them in the same room and shake BOTH of them at times. (White mentions in his closing statement that he desires the same thing, but of course he believes his position is so sure that he would be free of the shaking I would give him. I do not.)

Due to each author's shortcomings, this book may or may not change a person's mind on the issue (although volumes of mail to Hunt's ministry testify that many have had their eyes opened to Calvinism's faults). For myself, White's arguments did not respond well enough to the counter-arguments to persuade me to think otherwise. (I'm guessing Calvinists say the same with respect to Hunt's arguments.)

I do recommend that persons interested in the topic read the book once, despite its flaws. And then I recommend that all Christians remind themselves that salvation is by faith in Christ alone, whether God caused you to believe it irresistably or not.

Unlike articles in magazines, both sides here are given a fair chance, and equal space, to make their points. After reading Chosen But Free by Dr. Geisler, I thought Mr. Hunt did somewhat better. My main quibble is having to read the book with a highlighter and regular pen because Mr. Hunt consistently misrepresented Dr. White's beliefs. I found myself making notes in the margins, frustrated at him just not "getting" it. There were too many straw men to count.

That said, it's still a good point/counterpoint, written form of a formal debate. The first half of the book is Dr. White giving the "Calvinism affirmed" position (countered by Hunt); the second half of the book is Mr. Hunt giving the "Calvinism denied" position (countered by White).

There is one thing that really turned me off about Hunt, and that is that when he is able to make his first opening presentation (about halfway through the book), he uses it to lambaste Calvin and Augustine, as if Dr. White agreed with everything they taught! Dr. White accuses him of "poisoning the well," and I think that is right. There is no other reason to bring up the imperfections of these two men.

Some reviewers have noted that there is a history between Hunt and White, and that their animosity towards each other is brought into the debate. They are right. There is a history, and it does come through in some of the language used. I think both men get a bit too harsh at times.

Still, I don't know of another book like this - that gives both views - so I would recommend it to someone who wants to read both sides. If you want just one side or the other, both men have written books on this topic. Mr. Hunt has written What Love is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God and Dr. White has written The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Choosen But Free. I have read "The Potter's Freedom," and the only thing I can say about it is that it rocked my world. I can't recommend it highly enough.