Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views

The topic is not new, and it's been written/spoken about numerous times. Does God foreordain salvation? Or is it something He merely has knowledge of man's free will choices? In this book, Dave Hunt--who admittedly just began his study of the topic in 2000--and James R. White go toe to toe to determine which view is more scriptural. The topics are varied, with the first half of the book starting with James White, and then the other person getting a turn, for a total of three turns per topic. Unfortunately, I think this book will leave readers frustrated for several reasons:1) the two become quite contentious, especially in their rebuttals and rejoinders. Hunt seems especially testy and uses some strong loaded words and ad hominem attacks that were, IMHO, not necessary. White gets frustrated because Hunt so often misunderstands his points and creates straw men. (I especially got tired of him saying that Calvinists don't believe in evangelization because why do they need to--this is one tired argument that he kept up throughout the book. In fact, I know many more Calvinists who are active in evangelism compared to my Arminian friends whom I am always telling that, if they they really did believe that it is up to a person to decide for or against God, they should plan many more evangelistic outings than they currently do.)2) the two debaters often seem to talk past each other. I'm wondering if this debate would have been better in person, though I'm thinking they may have ended up in fisticuffs by the end. But I wonder if they would have been "nicer" in a public forum. Were they really that angry as their written words sounded? As they say about the danger of e-mails, they can be read in a wrong way. I wonder if this wasn't the case here.3) Hunt did not seem the best representative for the Arminian position since he admittedly is not an Arminian, though he holds to all the postions, including no "P," which is not always the case with Arminians. So often he ignored White's points made in the previous section and came up with very poor exegesis on some of the vital verses used by White.What I do like about the book is that Christians should not be scared to disagree. They can vigorously dialogue about these important issues and still understand that the essentials are in place. The book is worth a read, though it really seemed to bog down for me in the final 100 pages. But Christians need to know both sides before making up their mind about such an important issue, and this could be a good place to find out what the two sides are saying.

Great book, I find the written debate format far more engaging & retainable. Being able to read at your own speed, highlight arguments & analyze wording is very helpful. I should add though that I think Dave Hunt was outmatched here, it seems he was not at all familiar with calvinism; he made the typical cookie-cutter arminian arguments that don’t actually show any understanding. Hunt also uses ad hominem far more than a Christian ought to in an academic debate (especially in transcript form for all to see). Needless to say, I was teetering between my arminian upbringing & the reformed doctrines of grace for a while. This book, White’s arguments & biblical citations made it easy for me to finally be able to call myself a calvinist. It was weird at first saying it but now I’m confident in the biblical teaching of predestination, election, perseverance, limited atonement, etc. Very good read unless you aren’t actually willing to he a calvinist; you’ll just be enraged at James White & overlook all of he had arguments made by Dave Hunt. Going into this book I was perfectly willing to be a calvinist, or an arminian; as should any biblical Christian.

This is an excellent study which not only biblically exposes the heretical tenets of Calvinism but also reveals the faulty ways in which Calvinist defenders try to defend their theological system. Hunt does a thorough job in rebuking the first four points of Calvinism. Unfortunately, he has yet to see the light concerning the heretical nature of the fifth point. There IS a "Perseverance of the SAINTS", but not of unrepentant sinners, or of those supposely "PREDESTINED by God", "UNCONDITIONALLY ELECTED" and "IRRESISTABLY GRACED". That job is left up to works like Dan Corner's The Believer's Conditional Security, Robert Shank's book Life in the Son, or Clark Pinnock's edited book, The Grace of God and the Will of Man. A thorough and careful reading and rereading of Debating Calvinism will help build the necessary discernment skills the modern day Berean Christian needs in order to quickly recognize the erroneous thinking of Calvinist defenders today as well as other cult leaning groups who have fallen away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic doctrines.

I've already made up my mind for the most part on this subject and the book didn't change my mind, but it did help me to see more clearly why each side holds their views. What I see is both sides of the debate start with presuppositions and then claim their particular presuppositions are more logical or glorifying to God or whatever, but they are still presuppositions. I think if one reads the scripture plainly without assuming or trying to read anything into it the teaching is clear; interestingly it does not agree with any of the mainstream teachings that are commonly called by the name of one man or another. I'm not sure any book could convince anyone to change their mind on this subject but it is always helpful to understand what the best arguments are if one is to understand why one believes the way they do.

This book is an excellent resource of what the gospel is about. James White looks very prepared and highly qualified as writer and arguing without fallacies as the opponent Hunt makes up a lot of strow men and misinterpretation of the reformed theology. Good for both kinds of tendency Christians who wants to have a better understanding of what calvinism is all about vs. the other view.

This book can rightly be considered a modern day Luther/Erasmus debate. Just as romanism was the normal viewpoint among the general religious public during the reformation, so is this semi-pelagian and idolaterous emphasis on the love of God to the exclusion of every other attribute common in western Christianity today. Dr. White took Dave Hunt to school on this one.

Great book on the subject. Finding balance amidst extremes is so important in our day and thoughtfully considering what we believe in light of alternatives.

Having taken a keen interest in this subject over the years I was keen to read what these two brethren would say about their respective positions.As the debate developed it became clear that James White was a coherent and able advocate for 5 point Calvinism. He put his views across lucidly and with the utmost clarity. However, I believe that Dave Hunt was the clear winner for one very important reason - he used the Bible to back up his views and not Confessions of Faith and the statements of leading Calvinists.Indeed, Hunt quoted verse after verse to disprove White's system and all White could do was respond by making what seemed to be personal attacks on Hunt.If you want a good overview of the respective positions then this book is for you.

For those who understand the issues regarding Calvinism and Arminianism this is an interesting book to read. I personally believe both points are clearly taught in Scripture and I personally believe there is a truth in this area known only to God - We are not robots - John 6:37-40, 44, 65 cf. 2 Peter 3:9; I Timothy 2:4; Ezekiel 33:11. Thanks - Bob Jones

I loved this book and its good to see the responses from Dave Hunt. I've heard James White so many times and it was really good to See Dave Hunt respond point by point. Great debate. I only recently read this book because Calvinists always acted like Dave Hunt made lots of errors, but now I realize that they were just trying to put readers off from buying the book. I should have read this book years ago.

Life is too short for bad books, I didnt even make it past the first 30 pages. I would be a fan if there were substantive objections by both the calvinist and the arminian, however both relied on childish rhetoric that really undercut the opportunity for great discussion.