Debating Calvinism: 5 Points, 2 Views

[daveleau]

I'm currently reading this book.

It can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-3494009-2788936?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I like the details given so far. I do not like the tone that each takes with each other, though. They seem to be bashing each other more than realizing that they are two Believers with different interpretations. A decent read, though, if you want an affirmation of your own Reformed ideas or a view at what an evangelical believes. The non-Calvinist stance is not Arminian, but mixes Arminian and Calvinistis concepts.

 

[Tertiumquid]

Hi Daveleau-

I have this book, and i've read it thoroughly.

I do not like the tone that each takes with each other, though. They seem to be bashing each other more than realizing that they are two Believers with different interpretations.

If you could provide some examples documenting James White "bashing" Dave Hunt, i'd like to see them (page numbers and paragraph numbers would be fine). Keep in mind though when you're reading this book, it was the result of at least 2 or 3 years of interaction between the two authors. For some extremely crucial information that details the interaction between these two authors, see: http://www.straitgate.com/davehunt/index.htm. So you're not reading a first "Hi nice to meet you!" book. You're reading a "You've been informed on the truth and why do you resist correction?" exchange. If you're looking for a "Hi nice to meet you" exchange, listen to their first radio broadcast discussing these topics:

http://www.straitgate.com/jwdh1-16.ram

http://www.straitgate.com/jwdh1-16b.ram

In regard to Dave Hunt, I have very little positive to say about his work and ability to actually "debate Calvinism." I'm sure though he is a sincere Christian- but he should be brought under church discipline by whichever church he belongs to. He should not be allowed to publish books on subjects claiming "expert" knowledge on Calvinism (like his two editions of What Love is This).

In my opinion, it's not James White who is bringing division to the body of Christ, but rather it's Mr. Hunt (who claims Calvinists worship "another God"). Chrsitians should be accountable for their actions, especially those who publish books and claim to be experts on subjects. Especially when the topic impacts Christ's flock so importantly, authors like Hunt should have their work reviewed by a comittee of Biblical scholars before publication. Had Mr. Hunt done this with his material on Calvinism, I would have a gained a respect for him.

A decent read, though, if you want an affirmation of your own Reformed ideas or a view at what an evangelical believes. The non-Calvinist stance is not Arminian, but mixes Arminian and Calvinistis concepts.

Well said, but I must press the issue to you with a question: Is the Bible really that unclear about the subjects of sin, election, atonement, calling and perseverance? These are crucial biblical topics that are key facets of salvation proper. Is it really possible for two people to arrive at completely different conclusions after an exegetical study of the texts?

If you say yes, how then does one view the Bible? Has the Holy Spirit compiled such a poorly written book that its essential truths can't be understood with any certainty? Of course, i'm being blatantly rhetorical, and no Christian would affirm this. But, a Bible in which multiple exegetical interpretations are possible on crucial subjects only gives strength to one ecclesiastical body: The Roman Catholic Church and its claim for a need of an infallible interpreter.

To summarize: I do not grant the notion that two believers can have "different interpretations" that are both equally true on the subjects in question. One of them is not possible based on an exegetical reading of the Bible. God has placed difficult material in the Bible certainly, but its essential truths are perspicious.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[daveleau]

I don't want to start a debate in the Reformed forum on my ideals because I know Reformed believers hold Calvinism highly. If any of this crosses the line of debate, let me know and I'll remove or reword it.

In regards to the hostile nature, the entire preface (especially the opening paragraphs which caught my attention and almost caused me to pass on the book) and a large portion of the first rebuttals were ones that I thought were overly hostile. For instance, the third sentence of the preface begins with him saying that Hunt misquoted Matthew 23:37. Why start out on such a negative note, criticizing another Believer? He then immediately launches into a dig on Norman Geisler for not debating with him. If this is his style, I wouldn't want to debate with him either. I don't expect to be coddled, but this is a bit over the top, I thought. There's a difference between standing up for your ideals and pushing people away. In reading Predestination and Free Will: 4 views, I thought that discussion was very kind despite the vast disagreement. (This book has Feinberg, Geisler, Reichenbach and Pinnock giving their interpretations and rebutting the other 3's interpretations. They range from moderate Calvinism to Arminian and Open Theism.) Pinnock in his liberal Open Theist beliefs was the only one that I thought was overly harsh. The others led with what they agreed with and showed warm love for those they disagreed with rather than the disdain that Pinnock showed in this book and White showed in Debating Calvinism for the other's beliefs. These are men that have interacted throughout their careers- on opposing sides of theological fences-, yet they were still warm.

I agree that there are better and poorer interpretations. I believe no one has all the answers because sin has warped out ability to consistently interpret via the Holy Spirit within us. This includes renowned theologians, church leaders and anyone outside of Christ and the biblical authors (biblical authors were only completely correct when recording Scripture). There are absolutes throughout Scripture and God is described completely accurately within. I think the error is on our part in taking the information out. All too often, we take out what we want to hear, what we are comfortable with and what we have previously been taught, rather an what is there. Because of these these, honest exegesis can often fail to remove incorrect preconceptions and result in two separate interpretations. With these two honestly attempted exegetical studies, only one can be correct.

I consider myself a strong 4 point Calvinist. A fervent TULP, you might say. I believe God has the absolute ability to do the "I" of TULIP, but seeing the free will passages of Scripture and those who were called and did not answer (the Gospels are spent calling the Jewish who do not answer) leads me to believe that God uses His sovereignty at times that He decides while allowing us free will. God has complete sovereignty, but limits Himself sometimes. It depends on His plan. There are frankly some things that do not affect His overall plan. For instance, the often used example of choosing ice cream flavors, surely does not affect God's plan in every instance. Completely and fully describing God's ways regarding when he uses irresistible force or allows free will is beyond us (Rom 11:33)
I do not believe in applying the predestination passages to God's actions uniformly because of the passages that deal with free will. So, the predestination and free will aspect is one where I believe the Scripture describes God's actions closer to Hunt's than White's. I think theologians often take a concept described in Scripture (such as predestination) and apply it to all situations rather than describing God as using the different attributes in Scripture at different times..limiting Himself at times and acting as the sovereign God that He is at other times.

I am still reading the book. I have yet to finish it. I just finished the first discussion and rebuttals. I am currently reading a couple of other books at the same time (Schroeder's "The Science of God" discussing Creation (he's a theistic evolutionist with which I disagree) and Fiensy's "Introduction to the New Testament" which discusses much of the Intertestamental Period.) I like books with different views because I know I do not have a monopoly on knowledge. I take from each the good and cast off the rest and try to have an open mind as much as possible except when discussing the inerrancy of Scripture, Salvation and God's grace. For instance, in the Schroeder book, I am taking away the scientific support for Scripture, but casting off much of the theistic evolutionism.

I hope this helps you understand whatever it was that caused you to think I am some sort of dualist. I do not believe in pluralities. Far from it. It may be that Hunt does and I simply haven't gotten that far in the book yet. I doubt seriously that I will agree with Hunt throughout, since he debates against all 5 points.

God bless you,
Dave

Ah, I forgot one of the books I am working on. "Written in Stone" by Brother Ryken. What a superb book! That is the first time I have read what I have thought was correct regarding the Law (3 types of OT Law: Ceremonial, Moral and Civil). Superb! I thought I was out on a limb or something regarding what I have gleaned regarding the Law until this book. (Still not finished with it either...)

 

[daveleau]

Whoa. That's much longer than I intended. My apologies. :o

 

[Jon_]

(Dave Hunt in no way mixes any orthodox Calvinist concepts with his theology. One is free to not call him an Arminian, but he doesn't even have a streak of Calvinism in him.)

I bought this book hoping to see the best of the best of Arminian arguments against Calvinism, so that I could sharpen my own counterarguments. Instead, I got a fool of fools, Dave Hunt, and his ridiculous Open Theistic anti-theology. I was sorely disappointed.

Unless you're interested in typical mainstream "Evangelical" theology, pass on this book.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

P.S. (If you reject I on the basis of free will then you reject T, as well as the rest of the acrostic. Sorry my friend, you don't get to pick and choose which points you like. It's not a buffet--it's the Lord's truth.)

 

[daveleau]

Ugh. I haven't gotten far enough to see his Open Theist ideas. Very sad. I retract my statement in the OP regarding seeing the "other side". Open Theology is far from mainstream Evangelical theology.

I'll leave rebutting the PS to a GT thread.

 

[Jon_]

Ugh. I haven't gotten far enough to see his Open Theist ideas. Very sad. I retract my statement in the OP regarding seeing the "other side". Open Theology is far from mainstream Evangelical theology.

I'll leave rebutting the PS to a GT thread.

That's a thread in which I would participate if you were inclined to start it.

(It's also fair to note that Hunt's theology is not overtly Open Theistic, only that it logically concludes in Open Theism. If you made such a charge, he would staunchly deny it. Of course, I can show philosophically that orthodox Arminian soteriology always logically concludes in an Open Theistic view of God, so take that as you will. In any case, Hunt is no Calvinist. Not even close.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Tertiumquid]

Hi Dave,

I don't want to start a debate in the Reformed forum on my ideals because I know Reformed believers hold Calvinism highly. If any of this crosses the line of debate, let me know and I'll remove or reword it.

Well, you won’t get any problems from me even if you are debating. I know of no Reformed believers who hit the “alert” button when a challenge comes forth. Most of us have no problem being challenged about our beliefs. In my thinking, an honest challenge is simply a way to grow. I can’t begin to tell you how much I’ve learned from people questioning me as to why I believe what I believe. Secondarily, I’m sure you hold your beliefs as highly as a Reformed person hold theirs.

In regards to the hostile nature, the entire preface (especially the opening paragraphs which caught my attention and almost caused me to pass on the book) and a large portion of the first rebuttals were ones that I thought were overly hostile. For instance, the third sentence of the preface begins with him saying that Hunt misquoted Matthew 23:37.

I’m glad you didn’t pass on the book, because in terms of content, the Reformed position is defined in its simplest most Biblical form. One could simply read only Dr. White’s opening arguments in his affirming sections of the book to really get a clear grasp of the Calvinist position.



Ok. Let’s see exactly what James White said in the preface, third sentence:


“In the late summer of 2000,1 interviewed Dave Hunt on KPXQ radio in Phoenix. Mr. Hunt had just published an article in the Berean Call attacking the Reformed position. The article misquoted Matthew 23:37 and presented the "standard" objections to Calvinism, objections based primarily upon evangelical/Arminian traditions and common misconceptions concerning the actual beliefs of Calvinists.”


I really don’t find these words overly hostile, simply because they describe the previous interaction between White and Hunt, and also describe exactly what happened between the two to cause a debate. The readers need to know why Hunt and White are having a “debate”. What caused it? Well, this is what James is addressing.


Now you and I seem to have a different understanding of “hostile nature” and “debate”. I would find your criticism of White’s opening paragraphs valid if White was attacking Hunt the person, rather than Hunt’s position. James is in a debate with Dave. Both men think the other’s position is wrong. Thus, James immediately begins by saying Dave is wrong. This is what debate is about.


Now, I had that copy of the above mentioned Berean Call (I’m on Hunt’s mailing list). Indeed, Dave Hunt did attack Calvinism, and if you’re familiar at all with Hunt’s writing style, the emphasis is on the word “attack” (Remember, Dave Hunt says Calvinists worship a different god, thus his polemic began contrary to polite discourse among “differing opinions- in his thinking he’s warning the sheep from the theological Calvin-wolf).


In fact, Dave Hunt did misquote Matthew 23:37. If I recall, Dave left out the words “your children” (I no longer have the issue to check, I’m going from memory). James and Dave spent time discussing the leaving out of these words in the Berean Call article, and how important those two words are to the context of Matthew 23:37. I previously posted you the audio link to this discussion. You can listen to it to verify my statements.


Also, by listening, you will hear that Mr. Hunt provided no exegesis for his position in that discussion. Thus, James was completely justified in noting Hunt’s attacks against Calvinism were based on tradition and misconception. Continually in that discussion, Hunt presented a caricature of Calvinism, rather than actually Calvinism. It's clear that Hunt began writing and talking about Calvinism long before he knew what he was talking about (I would argue he still doesn’t know what he’s talking about).

Why start out on such a negative note, criticizing another Believer?

You have to keep in mind, this book has to begin by documenting why these two men ended up co-writing a debate book. The book is the result of dialog-frustration from both sides. Months previous to the book, the Beran Call had multiple articles attacking (and I do mean attacking) Calvinism. Dave Hunt was also giving lectures warning people about the dangers of Calvinism, and naming James White.

He then immediately launches into a dig on Norman Geisler for not debating with him. If this is his style, I wouldn't want to debate with him either. I don't expect to be coddled, but this is a bit over the top, I thought. There's a difference between standing up for your ideals and pushing people away.

Ok, let’s see what Dr.White said:



“I had written a full-length response to Norman Geisler on the same topic in The Potters Freedom, but Dr. Geisler had declined every opportunity for dialogue, especially public dialogue and debate. I knew Dave Hunt would not decline such an invitation.”


Interestingly, I see this as a compliment to Dave Hunt rather than an attack on Geisler. If you’ve read Geisler’s Chosen But Free and White’s Potter’s Freedom, Geisler should have indeed opened himself up for discussion. A Geisler and White discussion would have been a blessing to the body. This isn’t a dig against Geisler, it’s documenting the frustration Dr. White has had with those who write books against Calvinism: White wants to discuss these issues with scholars of respect, yet they decline. In Geisler’s case, he says he won’t debate “Christians.” But yet, Geisler won’t even discuss these issues in person with a Calvinist. Facts are facts: scathing books against Calvinism come out, and those who write them refuse to defend their positions, and in Geisler’s case, even discussing them. Dave Hunt is thus to be commended for doing something Geisler should have done. Again, I find nothing other then the fact that White notes Dr. Geisler refused to defend his very popular book, Chosen But Free, and Dave Hunt did choose to dialog and debate his own work.



Continued...

James Swan.

 

[Tertiumquid]

In reading Predestination and Free Will: 4 views, I thought that discussion was very kind despite the vast disagreement. (This book has Feinberg, Geisler, Reichenbach and Pinnock giving their interpretations and rebutting the other 3's interpretations. They range from moderate Calvinism to Arminian and Open Theism.)

I’ve seen the book, skimmed through it, but never purchased it, and I’ll take your word for it on the demeanor of the authors. I doubt that book was the result of earlier dialogs between the authors (like White and Hunt), but rather a work put together by an editor.



Just as a clarification, there is no such thing as “moderate Calvinism.” Defining our terms is crucial. In his book Chosen But Free Geisler defined himself as a moderate Calvinist rather than an extreme Calvinist. One wonders if extreme Calvinists are simply, in commonly understood terms, “Calvinists,” and moderate Calvinists are in essence “Arminians,” are there some other groups not mentioned… perhaps, Mild Calvinists? Would these be Pelagians? It would seem then, that everyone embracing the Christian faith to any degree or extent is thus some form of “Calvinist.” There could be, extremely mild Calvinists (Unitarians?), or mild moderate Calvinists, or extreme mild moderate Calvinists. It becomes clear how redefining a term the way Dr. Geisler has, eliminates it from meaning anything. Dr. Geisler seems to have some vague awareness that his definitional novum will be rejected. He states: “We should note that theologians we classify as extreme Calvinists consider themselves simply ‘Calvinists’ and would probably object to our categorizing them in this manner.” Probably” being an understatement indeed, and the burden of proof lies with Dr. Geisler to validate this linguistic redefinition.

Pinnock in his liberal Open Theist beliefs was the only one that I thought was overly harsh. The others led with what they agreed with and showed warm love for those they disagreed with rather than the disdain that Pinnock showed in this book and White showed in Debating Calvinism for the other's beliefs. These are men that have interacted throughout their careers- on opposing sides of theological fences-, yet they were still warm.

Well, so far I don’t think you’ve documented anything in which James White attacks Dave Hunt the person. So far, it’s been James being critical of Hunt’s arguments. Again, if you take the time to research what Dave Hunt spewed out previous to the book, I think you’ll have to come to the conclusion that James has been quite restrained in his comments.

I agree that there are better and poorer interpretations. I believe no one has all the answers because sin has warped out ability to consistently interpret via the Holy Spirit within us. This includes renowned theologians, church leaders and anyone outside of Christ and the biblical authors (biblical authors were only completely correct when recording Scripture). There are absolutes throughout Scripture and God is described completely accurately within. I think the error is on our part in taking the information out. All too often, we take out what we want to hear, what we are comfortable with and what we have previously been taught, rather an what is there. Because of these these, honest exegesis can often fail to remove incorrect preconceptions and result in two separate interpretations. With these two honestly attempted exegetical studies, only one can be correct.

Agreed. As an aside, I never wanted to be a Calvinist, and I think others will tell you the same thing. In my opinion, the strength of Reformed theology is exegesis. If you a get a chance, compare White’s Potter’s Freedom and Geisler’s Chosen But Free. In most cases, Geisler barrages his readers with proof-texts, whereas White delves into the text proper.

I consider myself a strong 4 point Calvinist. A fervent TULP, you might say. I believe God has the absolute ability to do the "I" of TULIP, but seeing the free will passages of Scripture and those who were called and did not answer (the Gospels are spent calling the Jewish who do not answer) leads me to believe that God uses His sovereignty at times that He decides while allowing us free will. God has complete sovereignty, but limits Himself sometimes. It depends on His plan. There are frankly some things that do not affect His overall plan. For instance, the often used example of choosing ice cream flavors, surely does not affect God's plan in every instance. Completely and fully describing God's ways regarding when he uses irresistible force or allows free will is beyond us (Rom 11:33)

I must say, most 4-point Calvinists deny limited atonement, thus I find your view intriguing. This is not the place to discuss your view, since we’re discussing the book Debating Calvinism. However, based on your reading of Dr. White’s explanation of Total Depravity in chapter two, do you think you can rightly claim to hold to the “T”? Similarly the “U” after reading chapter 3? The “L” after reading chapter 6? Remember, T,U,L,P are Reformed theological paradigms. I question whether or not you can hold to any of the letters in their traditionally defined meanings by denying any one of them.



In regards to God’s call, are you familiar with the Reformed paradigm of the internal and external call? In Reformed theology, Calvin would be the first to tell you that God’s call must go out to “all”, yet only those quickened from spiritual death by the work of the Spirit will answer that call. See chapter five and seven of Debating Calvinism.

I do not believe in applying the predestination passages to God's actions uniformly because of the passages that deal with free will. So, the predestination and free will aspect is one where I believe the Scripture describes God's actions closer to Hunt's than White's. I think theologians often take a concept described in Scripture (such as predestination) and apply it to all situations rather than describing God as using the different attributes in Scripture at different times..limiting Himself at times and acting as the sovereign God that He is at other times.

Just a quick philosophical argument. If God has chosen to create this world, and not some other, and that world is known to Him from its beginning to end, by choosing to create this world and not some other, he has thus predestined all actions, and not the others in the worlds he did not create.



I agree with you that the Bible speaks of free will-. yet, the only being who has such a will is God. In Chapter 2, White expounds what the Bible says about man’s will: it is enslaved to sin. This is hardly a free will.

I am still reading the book. I have yet to finish it. I just finished the first discussion and rebuttals. I am currently reading a couple of other books at the same time

I likewise read multiple books at the same time. Which points did you agree or disagree with in the first section?

I like books with different views because I know I do not have a monopoly on knowledge. I take from each the good and cast off the rest and try to have an open mind as much as possible except when discussing the inerrancy of Scripture, Salvation and God's grace. For instance, in the Schroeder book, I am taking away the scientific support for Scripture, but casting off much of the theistic evolutionism.

I likewise read material from opposing viewpoints, even against Calvinism. I have many of the popular books written against Reformed theology.

I hope this helps you understand whatever it was that caused you to think I am some sort of dualist. I do not believe in pluralities. Far from it. It may be that Hunt does and I simply haven't gotten that far in the book yet. I doubt seriously that I will agree with Hunt throughout, since he debates against all 5 points.

I don’t think you and I have ever discussed anything here before, and generally, I don’t have time to discuss things with anyone in cyber-space. My concern was whether or not you thought that the Bible has a knowable correct position on the issues at hand. I think you’ve said you do believe so, and that’s good. You and I are on the same page.



God Bless,
James Swan

 

[Tertiumquid]

Whoa. That's much longer than I intended. My apologies.

Hey it took me a while to respond to your comments. i might not be able to do the same in the future. I had some free time today.

God bless,
James Swan

 

[Tertiumquid]

(Dave Hunt in no way mixes any orthodox Calvinist concepts with his theology. One is free to not call him an Arminian, but he doesn't even have a streak of Calvinism in him.)

I bought this book hoping to see the best of the best of Arminian arguments against Calvinism, so that I could sharpen my own counterarguments. Instead, I got a fool of fools, Dave Hunt, and his ridiculous Open Theistic anti-theology. I was sorely disappointed.

Unless you're interested in typical mainstream "Evangelical" theology, pass on this book.

The book has value in this: I know many people using similar arguments to his (a good friend of mine is an avid supporter of Hunt and uses all his material). Reformed theology in essence, is profoundly simple to understand, and yet still profound. White does a good job putting forth a laymen's understanding of calvinism. The book may be one of the best tools to give to someone who may be struggling with these issues.

God bless,
James Swan

 

[Jon_]

I forgot to mention previously that if anyone wants my copy of this book, send me a PM or an email. I would be happy to mail it to you, as I have no further use of it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Bulldog]

Dave Hunt is an open theist? What led you to believe that?

 

[Jon_]

Dave Hunt is an open theist? What led you to believe that?

Not a full-on open theist, of course. He still acknowledges that God is omniscient and is capable of knowing the future. Other than that distinction, however, everything else pretty much falls into place. Of course, that's true of Arminianism in general, so...

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

Reformed theology in essence, is profoundly simple to understand, and yet still profound.

The gospel itself is profoundly simple, yet profound. Why to people try to water down the gospel and then expect people to believe it? In essence, they say that it is a miracle of God, but you are the one who does it. That in itself is a contradiction! Evangelism isn't recruting for a social club. It's honoring the wishes of our Lord that He may call whomever He will by the power of His word. Hunt's arguments are filled with MEology.

 

[Tertiumquid]

The gospel itself is profoundly simple, yet profound. Why to people try to water down the gospel and then expect people to believe it? In essence, they say that it is a miracle of God, but you are the one who does it. That in itself is a contradiction! Evangelism isn't recruting for a social club. It's honoring the wishes of our Lord that He may call whomever He will by the power of His word. Hunt's arguments are filled with MEology.

Ok, so I'm guilty of coveting- I wish I said this!

Blessings,
James Swan