Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views. By Dave Hunt & James White
Sisters: Multnomah, 2004, 427 pp., $17.99 softcover.
This book was worthwile, but frustrating to read. James White's The Potter's Freedom was instrumental in shifting my theological views to a Reformed perspective, so I don't claim to be unbiased. I reviewed Dave Hunt's What Love is This? in less than flattering terms largely due to his flawed argumentation and his egregious caricatures of Calvinist thought. Sadly, he persists in the same errors in Debating Calvinism. I had considered writing an extensive review, but that was too aggravating to contemplate. I will merely highlight a few points, and interested readers can peruse the full debate if they desire.
We begin with Acts 4:27 and 28. Unless otherwise noted, I'll use Mr. Hunt's preferred King James Version in all of my scriptural quotes. Please read the text carefully.
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
Whatever your theological perspective, the text unambiguously asserts that God determined beforehand what should happen in regards to the death of Jesus Christ. Now read with amazement as Mr. Hunt offers his view:
White's next example is Christ's crucifixion. Once again he goes beyond the text, which says only that God foreknew the evil in everyone's hearts and the actions they would take and that He used them to fulfill His preordained purpose. It does not say that God decreed or caused the evil intentions and actions of Pilate and Christ's crucifiers.[1]
The text says only that God foreknew the evil? No, it says that the people did what God had determined, not what He knew they would do. I don't know how Mr. Hunt defines "decreed," but "to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done" sounds an awful lot like a decree. Now Mr. Hunt is welcome to attempt an interpretation that varies from the plain reading, but he can't simply ignore the text. This approach typifies the entire debate. When presented with clear evidence for a point, Mr. Hunt simply turns it on its head and claims that the point supports his view. That, or after being given verses in support of a point, simply denies that any verses have been given:
...White says, "God chooses to raise His people to spiritual life...without the fulfillment of any conditions on the part of the sinner." But he can't offer one verse that says so.[2]
Okay, Hunt wins. White was unable to present even one verse supporting his view. But wait, let's back up a few pages and read the verses that White vainly offered up despite their total lack of support for his perspective:
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8)
For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake. (Phil 1:29)
Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith... (Heb 12:2)
...to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours (2 Peter 1:1)
By His doing you are in Christ Jesus... (1 Cor 1:30)
When God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb... (Gal 1:15)
Not one verse supports White's view--clearly these verses actually refute White and support Hunt's assertion that men fulfill conditions, thereby allowing God to work in their lives. If you believe that, you'll cheer Hunt on to victory as you read Debating Calvinism. On the other hand, if your thought processes tend to the logical, you'll be appalled at Hunt's blatant disregard for the arguments and texts laid before him, even if you come from an Arminian synergistic position and want desperately to support him in the debate. I'll provide one more example. Attacking the view that God must raise spiritually dead men to life so that they may believe, Hunt writes,
Nor can White produce a single verse that states in plain language that the unsaved person is incapable of believing the gospel...The Calvinist fails (in fact he doesn't even attempt) to support from Scripture the idea that even the most depraved sinner is unable to believe the gospel...there is no hint anywhere in Scripture...There is no suggestion...There is no Scripture...special ability (to believe) was invented to support Calvinism...Nor is there any suggestion...It isn't biblical...God's dealings with Israel don't even suggest...There is not a hint...There is not one Scripture to support that view.[3]
Methinks he doth protest too much. Hunt packed all of that negativity into less than four pages, yet what theologian is not familiar with Paul's assertion in Romans 8?
Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Reading that--and the following verse--in the New American Standard for clarity, we find the following:
Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Regardless of how you interpret that passage, no reasonable person can deny that it supports the idea of inability. You can't dismiss it as applying only to carnal Christians, as the next few verses make it clear that those in the flesh do not belong to God. Since Hunt vociferously denies that there is even one hint or suggestion in Scripture of inability, he's revealed to be unreasonable. That's also revealed by his penchant for building up straw men foreign to Calvinism, burning them to the ground, and then rejoicing in his meaningless victory. For example, Hunt has been caught mistranslating Matthew 23:37 (as have several other well-known preachers), not due to deliberate deceit but to ingrained tradition. First, the actual passage:
Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Here is how Hunt has misquoted it in the past: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered you together...and ye would not!" Of course, this changes the entire meaning of the passage in line with his tradition. Caught red-handed, Hunt should have admitted a mistake and moved on. Instead, he uses Debating Calvinism to mount a sad defense:
Yes, Jesus said, "thy children," but Jerusalem's children simply means her inhabitants as Spurgeon understood. That Christ means Jerusalem's nonadults is absurd.
[4]
Everyone agrees, Dave, so why waste space pretending that James White is too stupid to understand that fact? But Hunt is nowhere near finished:
...the word children never means nonadults...Surely Paul didn't mean just the nonadults...was it the nonadults who had kiled the prophets and whose house would be left desolate?[5]
I'm left shaking my head. By this point of the book my moments of frustration and outrage had softened into pity for a man willing to tackle a tough debate book despite being so obviously outclassed. I can't fathom a single Arminian (well, I know one, perhaps) who could read this book and not be embarrassed for Dave Hunt. Certainly Dr. Norm Geisler made a stronger case against Calvinism in his work, Chosen But Free, but White's response, The Potter's Freedom, crushed Geisler's arguments. I know that had I read Debating Calvinism as an Arminian, I would have converted to Calvinism by the time I closed the book.
Footnotes
[1] Dave Hunt & James White, Debating Calvinism, (Sisters: Multnomah, 2004), 52.
