What do you think?
Rate this book
Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views
A centuries-old belief system is put to the test as two prominent authors examine and debate the subject of Calvinism from opposing viewpoints. James White, author of The Potter's Freedom, takes the Calvinist position. Dave Hunt, author of What Love Is This, opposes him. The exchange is lively and at times intense as these two articulate men wrestle over what the Scriptures tell us about God's sovereignty and man's free will. This thought-provoking, challenging book provides potent responses to the most frequently asked questions about Calvinism.Is God free to love anyone He wants?Do you have any choice in your own salvation? It’s time to find out. Calvinism has been a topic of intense discussion for centuries. In this lively debate, two passionate thinkers take opposing sides, providing valuable responses to the most frequently asked questions about Calvinism. Only you can decide where you stand on questions that determine how you think about your salvation. Story Behind the BookThe subject of Calvinism has been hotly debated for many years, and now two prominent authors and researchers will debate this controversial topic in a book debate. This project came about when Mr. Hunt wrote What Love is This- Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God. Mr. Hunt was challenged by many on the Calvinist bench and he eventually agreed to do a debate in a book format. The books purpose is to get you to think and come to your own conclusions.
434 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 4, 2004
47 people are currently reading
330 people want to read
About the author
Dave Hunt
192 books58 followersLibrarian’s note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Dave Hunt was an American Christian apologist, speaker, radio commentator and author. He was in full-time ministry from 1973 until his death. A prolific best-selling author, international lecturer, and Bible teacher, his writings have been translated into at least 50 languages. More than four million copies of Dave’s books have been sold. For nearly a decade, Dave also co-hosted a weekly radio program, Search the Scriptures Daily, broadcast on over 400 stations in the U.S. and worldwide.
Dave Hunt was an American Christian apologist, speaker, radio commentator and author. He was in full-time ministry from 1973 until his death. A prolific best-selling author, international lecturer, and Bible teacher, his writings have been translated into at least 50 languages. More than four million copies of Dave’s books have been sold. For nearly a decade, Dave also co-hosted a weekly radio program, Search the Scriptures Daily, broadcast on over 400 stations in the U.S. and worldwide.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
August 20, 2008
This is a good book if you're a new Calvinist or an Arminian beginning to study the issue.
White demolishes Hunt at every turn. Hunt offers some of the most ridiculous and emotive arguments I've seen in a theological discussion. What we have here is confirmation of what seems to almost always be the case: Calvinists are just simply better theologians and exegetes than Arminians.
Due to Hunt's ridiculous and libelous approach to Calvinism in this book, one can get annoyed fairly quickly. It's because of Hunt that I gave it three stars. The debate would have been much better with a more respectful and scholarly Arminian than Hunt.
Debate boiled down:
White: Text, exegesis, rebuttal of anticipated objections to contrary exegesis.
Hunt: Calvin was a big meany and if your exegesis were true then God would be a big meany too. God is not a big ole meany, therefore your exegesis cannot be true.
White: Well here's an argument that the text does mean that.
Hunt: Whatever it means, it can't mean that.
White demolishes Hunt at every turn. Hunt offers some of the most ridiculous and emotive arguments I've seen in a theological discussion. What we have here is confirmation of what seems to almost always be the case: Calvinists are just simply better theologians and exegetes than Arminians.
Due to Hunt's ridiculous and libelous approach to Calvinism in this book, one can get annoyed fairly quickly. It's because of Hunt that I gave it three stars. The debate would have been much better with a more respectful and scholarly Arminian than Hunt.
Debate boiled down:
White: Text, exegesis, rebuttal of anticipated objections to contrary exegesis.
Hunt: Calvin was a big meany and if your exegesis were true then God would be a big meany too. God is not a big ole meany, therefore your exegesis cannot be true.
White: Well here's an argument that the text does mean that.
Hunt: Whatever it means, it can't mean that.
July 8, 2021
Nothing sums up the "debate" in this book better than Dr. White's own final quotation of preaching great C. H. Spurgeon, so allow me to quote his quoting:
"We must observe that there is nothing upon which men need to be more instructed than upon the question of what Calvinism really is. The most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometimes, I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue; and, to this day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John Calvin and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to defend your man of straw--shoot at it or burn it as you will, and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were never in existence. We come here to state what our views really are, and we trust that any who do not agree with us will do us the justice of not misrepresenting us. If they can disprove our doctrines, let them state them fairly and then overthrow them, but why should they first caricature our opinions and then afterwards attempt to put them down?"
I got this book because I did not know what Calvinism is, apart from something that most people I've ever known think is scary and heretical. Lately, discovering TULIP and analyzing the Westminster Confession in light of Scripture, I've found that not only are these the same straightforward tenets found in the Bible itself, but they are, for the most part, beliefs I myself have always held without knowing the language to express them. (I was only missing the "I" of the TULIP; the belief that man has libertarian free will and the power to alter God's behavior was ruining my life.)
So, wondering why Calvinism so frightened everyone I'd ever talked to, I decided this book would be an excellent gateway. What better way to figure out what Calvinism states -- and what the alternative is -- than by listening to one defending his beliefs in a debate? Unfortunately, the book is prevented from being that by the willful incoherence of Dr. White's coauthor.
Dave Hunt spends his half of the book condemning beliefs no one holds and arguing against a doctrine that doesn't exist. He never offers a positive biblical alternative to the Five Points, and wastes most of his paper in bad eisegesis, personal attacks, and distracting ellipses. (For serious, Hunt's machine gun fire ellipses makes me very uncomfortable to know what he's skipping.)
I saw everywhere before I read this book that it was half incoherent, that Hunt's arguments made no sense, that his portions of the book were inexplicable, and I found that to be absolutely the case. I can only imagine the painful conversations between editor and author and coauthor, and Hunt only seems to grow more belligerent as the arguments go on. However, White's portion is enlightening, well-written, taut, and extraordinarily patient. I can't fault him at all, as he provides better explanations for the alternatives to Calvinism than Hunt does, and offers clear Scriptural proofs.
Half solid, half frustrating, the book accomplishes half its purpose. But, it has helped me in my explorations of Reformed theology.
*With thanks to Reformed Memes Daily
"We must observe that there is nothing upon which men need to be more instructed than upon the question of what Calvinism really is. The most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometimes, I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue; and, to this day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John Calvin and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to defend your man of straw--shoot at it or burn it as you will, and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were never in existence. We come here to state what our views really are, and we trust that any who do not agree with us will do us the justice of not misrepresenting us. If they can disprove our doctrines, let them state them fairly and then overthrow them, but why should they first caricature our opinions and then afterwards attempt to put them down?"
I got this book because I did not know what Calvinism is, apart from something that most people I've ever known think is scary and heretical. Lately, discovering TULIP and analyzing the Westminster Confession in light of Scripture, I've found that not only are these the same straightforward tenets found in the Bible itself, but they are, for the most part, beliefs I myself have always held without knowing the language to express them. (I was only missing the "I" of the TULIP; the belief that man has libertarian free will and the power to alter God's behavior was ruining my life.)
So, wondering why Calvinism so frightened everyone I'd ever talked to, I decided this book would be an excellent gateway. What better way to figure out what Calvinism states -- and what the alternative is -- than by listening to one defending his beliefs in a debate? Unfortunately, the book is prevented from being that by the willful incoherence of Dr. White's coauthor.
Dave Hunt spends his half of the book condemning beliefs no one holds and arguing against a doctrine that doesn't exist. He never offers a positive biblical alternative to the Five Points, and wastes most of his paper in bad eisegesis, personal attacks, and distracting ellipses. (For serious, Hunt's machine gun fire ellipses makes me very uncomfortable to know what he's skipping.)
I saw everywhere before I read this book that it was half incoherent, that Hunt's arguments made no sense, that his portions of the book were inexplicable, and I found that to be absolutely the case. I can only imagine the painful conversations between editor and author and coauthor, and Hunt only seems to grow more belligerent as the arguments go on. However, White's portion is enlightening, well-written, taut, and extraordinarily patient. I can't fault him at all, as he provides better explanations for the alternatives to Calvinism than Hunt does, and offers clear Scriptural proofs.
Half solid, half frustrating, the book accomplishes half its purpose. But, it has helped me in my explorations of Reformed theology.
*With thanks to Reformed Memes Daily
August 5, 2014
This book contains a mismatched debate, and one not particularly glorifying to God. Not having read any other books by Hunt, I suspect he had bitten off much more than he could chew when he wrote "What Love is This?" and when he agreed to participate in this debate. I also suspect that many professing Arminians would disagree with Hunt's position. He just wasn't a good choice to represent that set of views.
But, knowing what I do about White, it's only because of Hunt's publishing "What Love" that this book exists at all. White is making a career for himself as a high profile apologetics debater. I have no idea what White is like at his real job of being an Elder at his local congregation. But he comes across as a bit superior in this debate. That he is the better theologian and the better debater is beyond doubt. He consistently refers to scripture with sound exegesis to back up his position, and at least tries to engage Hunt directly. But he is unable to do this because Hunt simply won't engage, or acknowledge that the argument has progressed.
I think this book fails to lay out a fair view of the Arminian position. I think there is far too much animosity evident in the language used. In my opinion, "Why I'm Not an Arminian" is a far superior book of this type. In saying that, I haven't read the companion volume "Why I'm not a Calvinist" but I want to.
This debate is very important. But it is done no favours by this book.
I've given two stars purely because if you are interested in the group of doctrines often called "Reformed" or "Calvinism", White does a good job of presenting them here, despite the unsavoury tone of the entire book.
But, knowing what I do about White, it's only because of Hunt's publishing "What Love" that this book exists at all. White is making a career for himself as a high profile apologetics debater. I have no idea what White is like at his real job of being an Elder at his local congregation. But he comes across as a bit superior in this debate. That he is the better theologian and the better debater is beyond doubt. He consistently refers to scripture with sound exegesis to back up his position, and at least tries to engage Hunt directly. But he is unable to do this because Hunt simply won't engage, or acknowledge that the argument has progressed.
I think this book fails to lay out a fair view of the Arminian position. I think there is far too much animosity evident in the language used. In my opinion, "Why I'm Not an Arminian" is a far superior book of this type. In saying that, I haven't read the companion volume "Why I'm not a Calvinist" but I want to.
This debate is very important. But it is done no favours by this book.
I've given two stars purely because if you are interested in the group of doctrines often called "Reformed" or "Calvinism", White does a good job of presenting them here, despite the unsavoury tone of the entire book.
July 30, 2016
This book was two guys engaging in a debate.
The one guy gave a strong positive argument for his position along with tackling the strongest arguments against it.
The other guy was disappointing, to me saddening, in the way he lobbed offensive grenades at various straw-man positions(without heeding clarifications from his opponent), while any hint of a positive argument was surface-level defensiveness.
It's historically meaningful and interesting to see the positions of both men and the way they argued and thought, but this is possibly not the very best book for readers on either side to sharpen/challenge their arguments. It's also quite painful to read.
The one guy gave a strong positive argument for his position along with tackling the strongest arguments against it.
The other guy was disappointing, to me saddening, in the way he lobbed offensive grenades at various straw-man positions(without heeding clarifications from his opponent), while any hint of a positive argument was surface-level defensiveness.
It's historically meaningful and interesting to see the positions of both men and the way they argued and thought, but this is possibly not the very best book for readers on either side to sharpen/challenge their arguments. It's also quite painful to read.
March 16, 2016
I got a lot more out of the first half when James White was presenting his arguments affirming Calvinism, mainly because I don't care for Dave Hunt's writing. After a while the whole thing just felt incredibly repetitive. It could have been 1/4 the length and said the same amount.
January 23, 2022
Not the best show of unity and love from either side, discussions like these should lead to Gods glory, stronger faith, and better doctrine. I feel this book was subpar in these categories. I commend brother White for trying to keep the debate brotherly and respectable only losing sight a couple of times. I think Dave Hunt needs to rethink his mission of complete hostility towards reformed theology but i do not think that will occur
This book is both simultaneously good and bad, in that if it did not exist I could go on with life but without it people would still be listening to Dave Hunt. Look if you read the Bible and you don't come to a calvinistic conclusion thats fine, just do not make a strawman and send a whole army to burn it with false accusations.
I like James Whites summary of what calvinism is and the references and verses he uses to set up the system. Now Dave Hunt uses the shotgun method where 1 in every 5 arguments is decent and James White either barely combats it or ignores it. I'm not surprised he ignores most of Hunts claims as they are all basically outrageous.
When Dave Hunt made a good argument I felt it was worth reading through the pain of every other thing he said. I had to take the book 10 pages at a time so I would not get an ulcer or headache. Normally i would have wanted someone else to represent the opposition to calvinism who actually knows the system. But seeing as Dave Hunts "What Love is This?" is very popular against calvinism, i respect James White for trying to show how diatribe and false Hunts accusations are.
Dave Hunts arguments are basically using verses like 2 Peter 3:9 and believe verses out of context. James whites whole argument is Dave Hunt is clouded by tradition and miss understandings.
Dave Hunt also tries to use the guilt by association technique which shows a clear lack of understanding as calvinism does not come from Calvin, but the synod of dort. I could post an article about how Calvin actually did not burn Servertus but you are probably better off just reading the bible to find out how accurate tulip is.
If you want to read this book, good luck. You are probably better off reading Luther's writings vs Erasmus's writings on the freedom of the will or something.
This book is both simultaneously good and bad, in that if it did not exist I could go on with life but without it people would still be listening to Dave Hunt. Look if you read the Bible and you don't come to a calvinistic conclusion thats fine, just do not make a strawman and send a whole army to burn it with false accusations.
I like James Whites summary of what calvinism is and the references and verses he uses to set up the system. Now Dave Hunt uses the shotgun method where 1 in every 5 arguments is decent and James White either barely combats it or ignores it. I'm not surprised he ignores most of Hunts claims as they are all basically outrageous.
When Dave Hunt made a good argument I felt it was worth reading through the pain of every other thing he said. I had to take the book 10 pages at a time so I would not get an ulcer or headache. Normally i would have wanted someone else to represent the opposition to calvinism who actually knows the system. But seeing as Dave Hunts "What Love is This?" is very popular against calvinism, i respect James White for trying to show how diatribe and false Hunts accusations are.
Dave Hunts arguments are basically using verses like 2 Peter 3:9 and believe verses out of context. James whites whole argument is Dave Hunt is clouded by tradition and miss understandings.
Dave Hunt also tries to use the guilt by association technique which shows a clear lack of understanding as calvinism does not come from Calvin, but the synod of dort. I could post an article about how Calvin actually did not burn Servertus but you are probably better off just reading the bible to find out how accurate tulip is.
If you want to read this book, good luck. You are probably better off reading Luther's writings vs Erasmus's writings on the freedom of the will or something.
March 15, 2013
From the title, I expected a book where each side would present their key texts, and then the other would attempt to refute them/show the errors. This was definitely not what I found. Instead of the scholarly debate I expected, I found a schoolyard name-calling contests. By the end of the book I was so frustrated, because the same arguments were being used over and over and over. White did a fairly good job to make a good, Scriptural debate (except for the name-calling), but Hunt didn't even seem to try. He didn't understand the position he was refuting, and wouldn't change his perceptions when it was pointed out that he misunderstood. His exegesis was also definitely not strong like White's. That is, when he did use Scripture at all. There was at least one chapter in his seven that used no scripture at all. He also never presented a solid presentation of what he did believe, always attacking Calvinism instead. For someone - on either side - merely looking to bolster their own view, this book may be of benefit. For someone who is truly searching out the issues, however, it is a joke.
February 22, 2010
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.
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.
November 26, 2007
A friend gave me this book, knowing that I like reading Theology and whatnot, so I gave it a chance. I didn't learn much from it. It typefies what I really don't like about some pockets of Christian theology. There is a lot of self-righteous, cocky, condescending attitude on both sides of the debate and absolutely no feeling of brotherly love or mutual respect. I felt like the point of this book was for each of the writers to appear smarter than the other rather than to uncover any truth or even perspective. The debate came across as very divisive and I think it would confuse and upset Christians who are new to the ideas central to the debate. I know that it is a divisive topic already, but I think two Christians debating anything should be able to see that at the end of the day, Christ is bigger than our differing ideas about what God is or does. I was disappointed that the debate and the writers being perceived as smart and right seemed more important than the gospel and the glory of our God.
January 9, 2015
This is the first book that I put back on the shelf before finishing in a long time. I guess I was expecting an informative and collegial debate. It was neither collegial or all that informative. The editor really made a mistake in choosing one the authors as the author did not follow the rules of the debate nor was he effectively arguing his side--I have seen much better in my limited experience with this debate. There are very learned theologians out there on both sides of this discussion that deeply respect those who disagree them and who recognize that this a discussion that in fact goes back at least to Saint Augustine without resolution...Oh well on to the next book. :-)
August 3, 2007
Gets off topic easily, thanks mostly to Dave Hunt's laughable straw man portrayal of what he thinks Calvinism is. White writes well, but both authors seem to assume the reader has read their previous works or heard their debates. I felt like I was coming in mid-way through a conversation, and wondered why one of the conversationalists was so blatantly disrespectful and off-topic. I can't help but think there are better representatives of the Arminian view than Hunt.
December 27, 2011
This is a great written debate on calvinism (Doctrines of Grace) between one of the best apologists and debaters in the reformed tradition vs an arminian sensationalist. After reading this book I'd advise you to read everything by James White and nothing more by Dave Hunt.
The fact that anyone can read Romans 9, Ephesians 1&2, John 6, Daniel 4 and believe the arminian position still boggles my mind.
The fact that anyone can read Romans 9, Ephesians 1&2, John 6, Daniel 4 and believe the arminian position still boggles my mind.
June 22, 2013
A good premise foiled by poor author selection. James White is simply so much more intelligent, better educated, and more practiced in debate that the book is lopsided. This ultimately harms both sides, since the merits of the issue are difficult to decide when one side puts up a poor performance. Also, whereas White's views are fairly standard confessional Calvinism, Hunt is not a classical Arminian but a strange mix of evangelical and semi-Pelagian, leading to more confusion along the way.
March 24, 2014
I was looking forward to reading this book in a small group whose focus was learning more/refresher on Calvinism and Arminianism. I expected that both individuals would present fair scholarly arguments. Instead, the Calvinist really only focused on the issue of God's Sovereignty, and he represented a very conservative position. The Arminian simply refuted the Calvinist's claims, but didn't provide any positive evidence for his arguments.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone.
Want to read
May 9, 2013James White did a fair job in his presentation, it was the non-attentive repetition from Dave Hunt that prevented this book from being nearly as useful as it could have been. Perhaps Michael Brown and James White will be abel to transcribe future debates and replace this book with a much more useful dialogue.
April 30, 2012
This book is ok. I think it is great for asking "how would I respond to that?" And then seeing how that may or may not differ from the author. I think they could've found a better opponent for White though, since their comparative knowledge of the different positions and original languages made the book less helpful than it could've been.
April 4, 2013
It kind of came across as an old school ranking contest! I would much rather read a book about Calvinism or Arminianism...separately. Ironically enough for Dave Hunt, it was through one if his own books that I learned about God's sovereignty, the way a Calvinist would view it...:/
September 6, 2016
The two authors seemed to be talking past each other, and obviously have no respect or charity for their opponent. White is the more systematic of the two, but also more condescending. Hunt is scattershot and repetitive.
February 21, 2008
James White does an excellent job, but I got tired of Hunts argumentation so I did not finish it.
Read
March 26, 2008A borrowed book that I had to return to the owner. Calvin, like so many other religious reformers, brought much error along with him in forming his new doctrine. A very interesting read.
July 6, 2017
This was awful. Dave Hunt is a terrible representative of Arminianism. A brother, to be sure, but a a poor choice. James White is marginally better, but still couldn't redeem it.
Read
August 4, 2012White demolishes Hunt.
Currently reading
August 14, 2012I'm going to read this to compare the two views so I can figure out if I'm still a Calvinist.
August 16, 2015
I persevered through this book even though it was a struggle. Whether or not I have a better understanding of the issues is still up for debate!
May 2, 2022
Almost 20 years after being published, I finally got around to picking up "Debating Calvinism" because I knew the pedigree of one of its authors, James White. I assumed, erroneously, that the book itself would be a solid exchange of points and the exegetical addressing of the text of Scripture accurately and honestly by two equally matched parties. I was mistaken and disappointed that it was not so as I was sincerely hoping to challenge my own preconceptions and presuppositions. "Challenge your preconceptions or they will most certainly challenge you."
James White does an incredible job of setting up his argumentation over the course of the books 427 pages that runs the gamut of scripture and theology to make his defense of Calvinist soteriology. Dave Hunt, however, is by far and away an inferior exegete and debater. Uncritical in his assumptions, unimpressive in his debating tactics.
Hunt lobs the same arguments over and over to the point where the reader can almost skip whole sections of response from him.
Hunt rarely if at all, gives a positive exegetical exposition of texts that challenge his position. Instead relying on the tried and true, 'This text cannot mean what it seems to mean because hundreds of other texts contradict such an understanding.' he blows right past any opportunity to give an affirmative argument for his own position is such cases.
Hunt constantly attacks Calvinism for God sending "billions to hell" while never addressing the same concern in his own theological camp that God created the world foreknowing billions would go to hell and did so anyway or possibly worse, that He is powerless to stop it.
When faced with correction by White, Hunt ignores or straw mans his opponent. This is especially apparent when White employs the original languages. Hunts tactic in such cases is to ignore such correction or to assert that White is incorrect because "hundreds of other Scriptures contradict such an understanding."
Hunt is uncharitable at every possible turn when it comes to actually dealing with what White has said or argued, including other Reformed writers as well.
Hunt routinely employs "I know you are but what am I?" type of argumentation. When White corrects him, Hunt routinely retreats to "No! It is Calvinism that really does this." Without ever substantially addressing Whites point.
Hunt calls on hundreds of quotes from dozens of Reformed writers. However he does so in such a way that the reader cannot help but realizing that he is most likely ripping such quotes out of their context and distorting the authors words to say something that they are not intending. If his treatment of Whites own writings and arguments is any metric for measuring this, then Hunt is just as uncharitable with other Reformed writers as He is with James.
Finally, and most annoyingly, Dave Hunt constantly makes use of and employs Charles Spurgeon to make his points for him, while either ignoring that CHS was himself a Calvinist, wrote "A Defense of Calvinism" and held to Reformed Baptist views. When he does recognize that Spurgeon is a Calvinist, it is always either "Charles Spurgeon is inconsistent on this point" or "Spurgeon disagreed with this aspect of Calvinism".
Hunt recycles the same arguments in almost every chapter or section he writes, greatly compromising the integrity of his argument against Calvinism.
The reason I give this book four stars and not less is the stellar writing and addresses of James White throughout. In spite of his uncooperative co-author, White adequately addresses the text of Scripture and various arguments throughout the course of the book, rarely returning to what he has already written except when necessary to correct Hunts repeating his multitudinous errors.
By all means, read this book, but do not expect much from Dave Hunt...he is like a fishing trawler going up against the warship that is James White and is blown out of the proverbial water.
James White does an incredible job of setting up his argumentation over the course of the books 427 pages that runs the gamut of scripture and theology to make his defense of Calvinist soteriology. Dave Hunt, however, is by far and away an inferior exegete and debater. Uncritical in his assumptions, unimpressive in his debating tactics.
Hunt lobs the same arguments over and over to the point where the reader can almost skip whole sections of response from him.
Hunt rarely if at all, gives a positive exegetical exposition of texts that challenge his position. Instead relying on the tried and true, 'This text cannot mean what it seems to mean because hundreds of other texts contradict such an understanding.' he blows right past any opportunity to give an affirmative argument for his own position is such cases.
Hunt constantly attacks Calvinism for God sending "billions to hell" while never addressing the same concern in his own theological camp that God created the world foreknowing billions would go to hell and did so anyway or possibly worse, that He is powerless to stop it.
When faced with correction by White, Hunt ignores or straw mans his opponent. This is especially apparent when White employs the original languages. Hunts tactic in such cases is to ignore such correction or to assert that White is incorrect because "hundreds of other Scriptures contradict such an understanding."
Hunt is uncharitable at every possible turn when it comes to actually dealing with what White has said or argued, including other Reformed writers as well.
Hunt routinely employs "I know you are but what am I?" type of argumentation. When White corrects him, Hunt routinely retreats to "No! It is Calvinism that really does this." Without ever substantially addressing Whites point.
Hunt calls on hundreds of quotes from dozens of Reformed writers. However he does so in such a way that the reader cannot help but realizing that he is most likely ripping such quotes out of their context and distorting the authors words to say something that they are not intending. If his treatment of Whites own writings and arguments is any metric for measuring this, then Hunt is just as uncharitable with other Reformed writers as He is with James.
Finally, and most annoyingly, Dave Hunt constantly makes use of and employs Charles Spurgeon to make his points for him, while either ignoring that CHS was himself a Calvinist, wrote "A Defense of Calvinism" and held to Reformed Baptist views. When he does recognize that Spurgeon is a Calvinist, it is always either "Charles Spurgeon is inconsistent on this point" or "Spurgeon disagreed with this aspect of Calvinism".
Hunt recycles the same arguments in almost every chapter or section he writes, greatly compromising the integrity of his argument against Calvinism.
The reason I give this book four stars and not less is the stellar writing and addresses of James White throughout. In spite of his uncooperative co-author, White adequately addresses the text of Scripture and various arguments throughout the course of the book, rarely returning to what he has already written except when necessary to correct Hunts repeating his multitudinous errors.
By all means, read this book, but do not expect much from Dave Hunt...he is like a fishing trawler going up against the warship that is James White and is blown out of the proverbial water.
January 24, 2023
I read a bit over half. Summary as follows:
White: The Bible says ____
Hunt: Calvinists are bad, the Calvinist's God must by my reasoning by bad, and the Bible says _____
White: You're wrong and you didn't address my points
Hunt: You're wrong and you didn't address my points
White comes off best, but it's a frustrating exercise in speaking past one another.
White has many good points that Hunt addresses quite poorly. Hunt has a few good points that White doesn't address, at least not to the extent I would like. At least White argues well for Calvinism in his introductions, giving a fair impression of what Calvinists believe - Hunt doesn't do the same for his viewpoint.
Would not recommend. I'd rather recommend Spurgeon's autobiography. It doesn't address Calvinism explicitly, but you're probably better off reading it than debating Calvinism anyway.
White: The Bible says ____
Hunt: Calvinists are bad, the Calvinist's God must by my reasoning by bad, and the Bible says _____
White: You're wrong and you didn't address my points
Hunt: You're wrong and you didn't address my points
White comes off best, but it's a frustrating exercise in speaking past one another.
White has many good points that Hunt addresses quite poorly. Hunt has a few good points that White doesn't address, at least not to the extent I would like. At least White argues well for Calvinism in his introductions, giving a fair impression of what Calvinists believe - Hunt doesn't do the same for his viewpoint.
Would not recommend. I'd rather recommend Spurgeon's autobiography. It doesn't address Calvinism explicitly, but you're probably better off reading it than debating Calvinism anyway.
June 15, 2021
This is your common tradition vs exegesis debate when it comes to this book. Mr. Hunt spends most if not all of the book straw-manning Calvinism and arguing that his view is right without demonstrating why. Mr. Hunt demonstrates that he is driven by his tradition and that he doesn’t truly understand Calvinism. Dr. White spends his time providing an exegetical defense for why Calvinism is biblical. You can see clearly who presented the God-central biblical view.
August 12, 2011
What an interesting debate this book turned out to be. I've heard good things of Dave Hunt's ability to sit and debate with Roman Catholics. I respect anyone who has the ability to do this form of face-to-face apologetic work. However, Dave Hunt is a scatter-shot debater on paper. He lacks form and structure in his arguments and leaves White with piles of objections that he only has the ability (do to the page restriction on each debater) to answer a few. By basking in various forms of special pleading and character assassination (of the Reformers and Augustine of Hippo), Dave Hunt attempts to support his views. Actually, we never really get to know what his views ARE because he spends more time telling us what his views are NOT. I would really have preferred Dr. Norman Geisler arguing in the stead of Hunt during this written-debate. Dr. Geisler is far superior when it comes to forming logical and cogent arguments to support his views, even if they are not always correct.
James White, on the other hand, is a phenomenal writer and apologist when it comes to this written-debate. He is coherent and deals not only with objecting to Hunt's misunderstandings of Calvinism, but also provides enough space to present more of what he himself believes and how and why he has come to that conclusion. Unlike Hunt, White provides sound exegesis of Scripture. I simply would have been much more pleased overall if White had someone that matched or surpassed his apologetic ability to debate with (like Dr. Geisler).
However, they both managed to continually fall into attacking one another's ability, rather than the arguments themselves. This was a downfall and got more annoying as the book progressed. Does it make the book not worth reading? Absolutely not. One will learn much from both sides, and hopefully walk away with a better understanding and lack of misconceptions on the Reformed view.
James White, on the other hand, is a phenomenal writer and apologist when it comes to this written-debate. He is coherent and deals not only with objecting to Hunt's misunderstandings of Calvinism, but also provides enough space to present more of what he himself believes and how and why he has come to that conclusion. Unlike Hunt, White provides sound exegesis of Scripture. I simply would have been much more pleased overall if White had someone that matched or surpassed his apologetic ability to debate with (like Dr. Geisler).
However, they both managed to continually fall into attacking one another's ability, rather than the arguments themselves. This was a downfall and got more annoying as the book progressed. Does it make the book not worth reading? Absolutely not. One will learn much from both sides, and hopefully walk away with a better understanding and lack of misconceptions on the Reformed view.
October 23, 2019
I hold to Classical Arminianism. White is a "modern" Calvinist, which means that some of his beliefs differ from other prominent Calvinists, but not significantly. And Hunt is NOT an Arminian. He is Semi-Pelagian. He has some similarities with Arminianism, but some radical differences as well.
Sadly, Hunt is not a skilled debater or writer. Again, he made some great points on occasion, but those were few and far between.
I have a great deal of respect for James White. I think he is a champion apologist and a skilled debater, especially when it comes to defending the faith. However, when it comes to him debating people on Calvinism, he is extremely pompous. He frequently accused Hunt of misunderstanding Calvinism, and in some cases, rightly so. However, White misunderstands Arminianism as well, and a good bit of his arguments were mere straw men. I think the most disappointing aspect of this was that Hunt did not represent Arminianism well, and he didn't really follow the debate protocol. It would have been great to see someone who is actually Arminian (in the classical sense) and who is a skilled writer and thinker actually engage with White (and even call him out sometimes). Then, I think it could be a useful tool for both men being sharpened, and the readers being blessed as well.
Sadly, Hunt is not a skilled debater or writer. Again, he made some great points on occasion, but those were few and far between.
I have a great deal of respect for James White. I think he is a champion apologist and a skilled debater, especially when it comes to defending the faith. However, when it comes to him debating people on Calvinism, he is extremely pompous. He frequently accused Hunt of misunderstanding Calvinism, and in some cases, rightly so. However, White misunderstands Arminianism as well, and a good bit of his arguments were mere straw men. I think the most disappointing aspect of this was that Hunt did not represent Arminianism well, and he didn't really follow the debate protocol. It would have been great to see someone who is actually Arminian (in the classical sense) and who is a skilled writer and thinker actually engage with White (and even call him out sometimes). Then, I think it could be a useful tool for both men being sharpened, and the readers being blessed as well.
July 11, 2012
This book is awful. Don't read it. Here are my main complaints:
1) They are both awful debaters. I read a lot of reviews that said James White won or that he is superior but he's not. He's more confident and full of hot air so he sounds better. Neither one wins because the discussion devolves in a series of straw men attacks and stupid criticisms that don't have much merit in the conversation.
2) As echoed before, James White is not that great of a debater. In fact, he is more annoying because his assumptions and assertions are inaccurate and usually over exaggerations of Dave Hunt's. He thinks he's smart but he comes off as arrogant and I don't want to listen to anything he has to say after he uses so many personal attacks like he's on some righteous vendetta. Too much for me.
3) Dave Hunt is probably the worst person to have engaged in this debate (ironic that the book was published by a Reformed company). He isn't good on the line by line of the debate and if he does lose, its because he beats himself, not because James White is a genius.
In the end, its just not worth it. They could've gotten great thinkers like RC Sprowl or Greg Boyd and that'd have been interesting.
1) They are both awful debaters. I read a lot of reviews that said James White won or that he is superior but he's not. He's more confident and full of hot air so he sounds better. Neither one wins because the discussion devolves in a series of straw men attacks and stupid criticisms that don't have much merit in the conversation.
2) As echoed before, James White is not that great of a debater. In fact, he is more annoying because his assumptions and assertions are inaccurate and usually over exaggerations of Dave Hunt's. He thinks he's smart but he comes off as arrogant and I don't want to listen to anything he has to say after he uses so many personal attacks like he's on some righteous vendetta. Too much for me.
3) Dave Hunt is probably the worst person to have engaged in this debate (ironic that the book was published by a Reformed company). He isn't good on the line by line of the debate and if he does lose, its because he beats himself, not because James White is a genius.
In the end, its just not worth it. They could've gotten great thinkers like RC Sprowl or Greg Boyd and that'd have been interesting.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews