Debate on Calvinism. White/Hunt

[Arial]

I just started reading Debating Calvinism with Dave Hunt and James White. It was published in 2004, I became Reformed in 2005 and do not know how I missed it. So to many on here, it is probably old news. To those who haven't read it I recommend it. If it has been a long time a reread might be refreshing. To be honest, I did not begin interacting on forums until a few years ago, and I think I gain more from the book having encountered it after being in the debates online. I find it very helpful in identifying the deflections and logical fallacies and failure to address actual content of opposing posts. I learned to refine doing so in the forums, and it is good to know I am not alone in pointing them out in my exchanges.

In the debate in the mentioned book, we find Hunt doing all the same things we find those opposed to Calvinism doing by way of debate. When the two positions are set side by side as they are in this book, we see a remarkable difference to each approach. That is, the beginning premise by White, and that of Hunt in response to it.. I will just deal with Part One which is Calvinism Affirmed by White, and the response by Hunt, but not the details of it, but the astonishing differences between the two.

James White begins his premise as The Eternal Decree of God. He begins by quoting from the 1689 Baptist confession. "God is all-sufficient, and all life, glory, goodness and blessedness are found in Him and in Him alone. He does not stand in need of any of the creatures He made, nor does He derive any of His glory from them.---" White then goes on to address "The Free and Proper Kingship of God," presenting His sovereignty as complete and total over His creation, citing numerous Scriptures that say just that with no equivocation. He addresses "The Counsel of His Will" in the same way. He asks the question "Does the King Reign Over All the Sons of Men." He deals with "Compatibilism" and gives biblical examples with clear explanation. In his conclusion to all he has said, White says,"The truth of God's eternal decree flows from the fact that God as Creator of all things and that everything He does (including the act of creation) is done for a purpose." and "---and as we will see, this divine truth forms the necessary basis for the truth of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone." Note, it is all about God. Not once in his statements does he attack a person or a theology or a doctrine. He simply shows what the Bible shows about God as Creator and Sovereign.

Here is how Dave Hunt begins his rebuttal: "White begins his treatise with a ringing tribute to God's sovereignty. The Calvinist knows little else." Immediately he deflects from the issue at hand and goes on the attack of an "ism", White, followed by attacks in MacArthur, and two others, giving quotes on God's sovereignty. He then offers more attacks on Calvinism for exulting God's sovereignty. He offers a few more personal attacks and then shifts the rebuttal to the subject of God's love. He states, referring to the quote from the Baptist confession, "But where is God's love? Not once in the nearly 1300 pages of his Institutes does Calvin extol God's love for mankind, (which may or may not be true. Parenthesis mine.) This one-sided emphasis reveals Calvinisms primary defect: the unbiblical limitations it puts on God's most glorious attribute."

I will pause here a moment to comment on that last statement and how Hunt endicts himself as not bothering with acquiring a biblical theology, but arriving at a portrayal of God that suits his fancy and has no biblical support at all, and he himself being the one that uses a one-sided emphasis. Only love. God does not have a most glorious attribute and it would be impossible for Him to have an attribute that was superior to all His other attributes. All His attributes are equally glorious, all of the time. He cannot love people more than He hates evil, and therefore allow love to accept evil. His wrath against evil is a product of His righteousness. His judgment of sin is equal to His demand for righteousness. He cannot love what He hates. Not to mention the demand upon God to be love is far greater than even the demands we place on our own love. In our lives we discriminate within love. We do not love our neighbors wife in the same way we love our own wife etc. and yet Hunt, and all the countless others who base their objection to the doctrines of election and predestination in Reformed theology on that one thing---it is not fair, and it would not be love unless God loved all people equally and in the same way.

All the arguments following in Hunt's rebuttal, point by point against White, always misstate and/or misunderstand what White has said. Sound familiar? Is this a blindness caused by the overriding tradition, that nearly all Christian's alive today began with? That of "Invite Jesus into your heart and you will be saved."? That of, man chooses whether to be saved or not. A blindness so complete that they are unable to understand what it being said? Or an intentional blindness that refuses to hear and tries to drown it out by repeating the same things and the same scripture over and over, and never closely examines or considers, or responds to, what is being said?

The Reformed Baptist sets a premise, the eternal decree of God, and supports it step by step with Scripture---the self revealed God---and sums up with a conclusion.
The entire thing is based on who God is.

The anti Reformed attacks the eternal decree of God by attacking people and and "ism. Mentions only one characteristic of God, that being love, and that defined by Hunt HImself, not the Bible, except with one isolated scripture, isolated from its context and isolated from the whole counsel of God, "God is love." He never gives any support against the eternal decree of God but attacks White's position by misstating it every step of the way. It does not have God, and His freedom as its center as it should be, since He is the Creator. It has the creature and its freedom as the only concern. In his entire rebuttal on just this one issue, God is in the periphery. And he says all he says, and then does not bother to give a summary conclusion.
"Yet wisdom is justified by her children." (Luke 7:35)

 

[His clay]

I just started reading Debating Calvinism with Dave Hunt and James White. It was published in 2004, I became Reformed in 2005 and do not know how I missed it. So to many on here, it is probably old news. To those who haven't read it I recommend it. If it has been a long time a reread might be refreshing. To be honest, I did not begin interacting on forums until a few years ago, and I think I gain more from the book having encountered it after being in the debates online. I find it very helpful in identifying the deflections and logical fallacies and failure to address actual content of opposing posts. I learned to refine doing so in the forums, and it is good to know I am not alone in pointing them out in my exchanges.

In the debate in the mentioned book, we find Hunt doing all the same things we find those opposed to Calvinism doing by way of debate. When the two positions are set side by side as they are in this book, we see a remarkable difference to each approach. That is, the beginning premise by White, and that of Hunt in response to it.. I will just deal with Part One which is Calvinism Affirmed by White, and the response by Hunt, but not the details of it, but the astonishing differences between the two.

James White begins his premise as The Eternal Decree of God. He begins by quoting from the 1689 Baptist confession. "God is all-sufficient, and all life, glory, goodness and blessedness are found in Him and in Him alone. He does not stand in need of any of the creatures He made, nor does He derive any of His glory from them.---" White then goes on to address "The Free and Proper Kingship of God," presenting His sovereignty as complete and total over His creation, citing numerous Scriptures that say just that with no equivocation. He addresses "The Counsel of His Will" in the same way. He asks the question "Does the King Reign Over All the Sons of Men." He deals with "Compatibilism" and gives biblical examples with clear explanation. In his conclusion to all he has said, White says,"The truth of God's eternal decree flows from the fact that God as Creator of all things and that everything He does (including the act of creation) is done for a purpose." and "---and as we will see, this divine truth forms the necessary basis for the truth of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone." Note, it is all about God. Not once in his statements does he attack a person or a theology or a doctrine. He simply shows what the Bible shows about God as Creator and Sovereign.

Here is how Dave Hunt begins his rebuttal: "White begins his treatise with a ringing tribute to God's sovereignty. The Calvinist knows little else." Immediately he deflects from the issue at hand and goes on the attack of an "ism", White, followed by attacks in MacArthur, and two others, giving quotes on God's sovereignty. He then offers more attacks on Calvinism for exulting God's sovereignty. He offers a few more personal attacks and then shifts the rebuttal to the subject of God's love. He states, referring to the quote from the Baptist confession, "But where is God's love? Not once in the nearly 1300 pages of his Institutes does Calvin extol God's love for mankind, (which may or may not be true. Parenthesis mine.) This one-sided emphasis reveals Calvinisms primary defect: the unbiblical limitations it puts on God's most glorious attribute."

I will pause here a moment to comment on that last statement and how Hunt endicts himself as not bothering with acquiring a biblical theology, but arriving at a portrayal of God that suits his fancy and has no biblical support at all, and he himself being the one that uses a one-sided emphasis. Only love. God does not have a most glorious attribute and it would be impossible for Him to have an attribute that was superior to all His other attributes. All His attributes are equally glorious, all of the time. He cannot love people more than He hates evil, and therefore allow love to accept evil. His wrath against evil is a product of His righteousness. His judgment of sin is equal to His demand for righteousness. He cannot love what He hates. Not to mention the demand upon God to be love is far greater than even the demands we place on our own love. In our lives we discriminate within love. We do not love our neighbors wife in the same way we love our own wife etc. and yet Hunt, and all the countless others who base their objection to the doctrines of election and predestination in Reformed theology on that one thing---it is not fair, and it would not be love unless God loved all people equally and in the same way.

All the arguments following in Hunt's rebuttal, point by point against White, always misstate and/or misunderstand what White has said. Sound familiar? Is this a blindness caused by the overriding tradition, that nearly all Christian's alive today began with? That of "Invite Jesus into your heart and you will be saved."? That of, man chooses whether to be saved or not. A blindness so complete that they are unable to understand what it being said? Or an intentional blindness that refuses to hear and tries to drown it out by repeating the same things and the same scripture over and over, and never closely examines or considers, or responds to, what is being said?

The Reformed Baptist sets a premise, the eternal decree of God, and supports it step by step with Scripture---the self revealed God---and sums up with a conclusion.
The entire thing is based on who God is.

The anti Reformed attacks the eternal decree of God by attacking people and and "ism. Mentions only one characteristic of God, that being love, and that defined by Hunt HImself, not the Bible, except with one isolated scripture, isolated from its context and isolated from the whole counsel of God, "God is love." He never gives any support against the eternal decree of God but attacks White's position by misstating it every step of the way. It does not have God, and His freedom as its center as it should be, since He is the Creator. It has the creature and its freedom as the only concern. In his entire rebuttal on just this one issue, God is in the periphery. And he says all he says, and then does not bother to give a summary conclusion.
"Yet wisdom is justified by her children." (Luke 7:35)

Hunt definitely tries to avoid his weakness. Hence, because his exegetical skills are lacking, he uses a myriad of proof-texts. White, who has clearly superior exegetical skills, has the greater depth when explaining the meaning of key verses. Quality vs quantity.

The first time I read through the book the above issue stuck out like a sore thumb. We may also categorize it as superficial vs in-depth understanding of the passages in question.

 

[Arial]

Hunt definitely tries to avoid his weakness. Hence, because his exegetical skills are lacking, he uses a myriad of proof-texts. White, who has clearly superior exegetical skills, has the greater depth when explaining the meaning of key verses. Quality vs quantity.

The first time I read through the book the above issue stuck out like a sore thumb. We may also categorize it as superficial vs in-depth understanding of the passages in question.

I fully agree. One actually defends his position from exegesis and knowledge of the scriptures. The other has none. He argues from a presupposition and attacks views and persons from the presupposition----never the scriptures except through proof texting that are completely unattached to any context of the whole counsel of God, are in fact imo utterly detached from God. At least from what God says about Himself.

 

[ReverendRV]

Hunt definitely tries to avoid his weakness. Hence, because his exegetical skills are lacking, he uses a myriad of proof-texts. White, who has clearly superior exegetical skills, has the greater depth when explaining the meaning of key verses. Quality vs quantity.

The first time I read through the book the above issue stuck out like a sore thumb. We may also categorize it as superficial vs in-depth understanding of the passages in question.

That's why I like Moderated Debates, but even then it can be like 'Nailing down Jell-O'. I think having the Moderator being able to Score and Call Fouls, would be the answer. I would like to see something like this here...

What do you think? Would you like to do something like this for Posters here?

 

[Josheb]

I just started reading Debating Calvinism with Dave Hunt and James White.........

Don't waste your time. Not only are Hunt's arguments sophomoric, but he is also considered lame even among Arminians.

Curiously, I was reading an article by Hunt just this morning on divine foreknowledge and thought he had one or two valid and cogently made points. However, his overall arguments prove frequently flawed and at times incomprehensible despite the fact he thinks just the opposite.

The Zondervan Counterpoints series does a better job of providing a sampling of diverse perspectives on various theological points of view, even on soteriological matters (like divine foreknowledge). Although not in debate form, each theologian selected asserts their position and then each of the comparable/contrasting/opposing views offers a critique.

 

[Arial]

Don't waste your time. Not only are Hunt's arguments sophomoric, but he is also considered lame even among Arminians.

Curiously, I was reading an article by Hunt just this morning on divine foreknowledge and thought he had one or two valid and cogently made points. However, his overall arguments prove frequently flawed and at times incomprehensible despite the fact he thinks just the opposite.

The Zondervan Counterpoints series does a better job of providing a sampling of diverse perspectives on various theological points of view, even on soteriological matters (like divine foreknowledge). Although not in debate form, each theologian selected asserts their position and then each of the comparable/contrasting/opposing views offers a critique.

I know Hunt's points are sophomoric. I see the exact same ones made in those debates on forums, and I saw their lameness and weakness and avoidance then. In Hunts chapter, "Calvinism Denied" his very first rebuttal, my book is underlined and marginal noted starting with the very first paragraph, made as to the lameness, yes stupidity, and why they are lame. Though I may not be able to wade through all his presentations, mainly because I can't talk back and voice my amusement, it is good training exercise for the mind, to catch it all. And what White has to say is worth reading, even if it is truths that already know. Individual ways of wording things, and another lens placed over truth, is always profitable.

 

[Josheb]

I know Hunt's points are sophomoric. I see the exact same ones made in those debates on forums, and I saw their lameness and weakness and avoidance then. In Hunts chapter, "Calvinism Denied" his very first rebuttal, my book is underlined and marginal noted starting with the very first paragraph, made as to the lameness, yes stupidity, and why they are lame. Though I may not be able to wade through all his presentations, mainly because I can't talk back and voice my amusement, it is good training exercise for the mind, to catch it all. And what White has to say is worth reading, even if it is truths that already know. Individual ways of wording things, and another lens placed over truth, is always profitable.

Yep. I meant to say his arguments are PARTICULARLY sophomoric, even among all other synergists. It is difficult to believe he ever became a spokesman for the cause. He's really, really bad at exegesis and reason .

 

[Arial]

Yep. I meant to say his arguments are PARTICULARLY sophomoric, even among all other synergists. It is difficult to believe he ever became a spokesman for the cause. He's really, really bad at exegesis and reason .

He even admitted he was ignorant of the Reformers and knew nothing of what they said. Then a few months later wrote a book about it. I remember him from back in the 80's when he wrote a book about the word of faith movement. It is the only one read brother would tell me from time to time of modern day prophecies he was making. I think he was big into that. All his prophecies failed, and often he would wait til something had happened then say God had shown him beforehand that it would happen. Another proficient writer in the Christian world, and very popular was Norman Geisler.

I started reading his book Chosen But Free right after I was introduced to Reformed theology and just beginning to study. Although I was not able at that time to pick apart the fallacies, I got about a quarter of the way through it and said "He is just trying to muddy the waters." And put it aside. Much later I read White's The Potter's Freedom and I was right. The first deceit was identifying himself as a moderate Calvinist and five point Calvinism as extreme Calvinism. Then he proceeded to denounce the very core of Calvinism and all five points except maybe the P. He redefined words, presented illogical arguments, started with the freedom of man and that surpassing the freedom of God, and argued his points with no exegesis of any scripture.

It says something when respected apologists and theologians come to dispute Reformed theology, they lose all ability of exegesis and reason, argue fallacies of probably all types. One thing it says is that is no exegetical way to dispute the theology.

 

[makesends]

I just started reading Debating Calvinism with Dave Hunt and James White. It was published in 2004, I became Reformed in 2005 and do not know how I missed it. So to many on here, it is probably old news. To those who haven't read it I recommend it. If it has been a long time a reread might be refreshing. To be honest, I did not begin interacting on forums until a few years ago, and I think I gain more from the book having encountered it after being in the debates online. I find it very helpful in identifying the deflections and logical fallacies and failure to address actual content of opposing posts. I learned to refine doing so in the forums, and it is good to know I am not alone in pointing them out in my exchanges.

In the debate in the mentioned book, we find Hunt doing all the same things we find those opposed to Calvinism doing by way of debate. When the two positions are set side by side as they are in this book, we see a remarkable difference to each approach. That is, the beginning premise by White, and that of Hunt in response to it.. I will just deal with Part One which is Calvinism Affirmed by White, and the response by Hunt, but not the details of it, but the astonishing differences between the two.

James White begins his premise as The Eternal Decree of God. He begins by quoting from the 1689 Baptist confession. "God is all-sufficient, and all life, glory, goodness and blessedness are found in Him and in Him alone. He does not stand in need of any of the creatures He made, nor does He derive any of His glory from them.---" White then goes on to address "The Free and Proper Kingship of God," presenting His sovereignty as complete and total over His creation, citing numerous Scriptures that say just that with no equivocation. He addresses "The Counsel of His Will" in the same way. He asks the question "Does the King Reign Over All the Sons of Men." He deals with "Compatibilism" and gives biblical examples with clear explanation. In his conclusion to all he has said, White says,"The truth of God's eternal decree flows from the fact that God as Creator of all things and that everything He does (including the act of creation) is done for a purpose." and "---and as we will see, this divine truth forms the necessary basis for the truth of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone." Note, it is all about God. Not once in his statements does he attack a person or a theology or a doctrine. He simply shows what the Bible shows about God as Creator and Sovereign.

Here is how Dave Hunt begins his rebuttal: "White begins his treatise with a ringing tribute to God's sovereignty. The Calvinist knows little else." Immediately he deflects from the issue at hand and goes on the attack of an "ism", White, followed by attacks in MacArthur, and two others, giving quotes on God's sovereignty. He then offers more attacks on Calvinism for exulting God's sovereignty. He offers a few more personal attacks and then shifts the rebuttal to the subject of God's love. He states, referring to the quote from the Baptist confession, "But where is God's love? Not once in the nearly 1300 pages of his Institutes does Calvin extol God's love for mankind, (which may or may not be true. Parenthesis mine.) This one-sided emphasis reveals Calvinisms primary defect: the unbiblical limitations it puts on God's most glorious attribute."

I will pause here a moment to comment on that last statement and how Hunt endicts himself as not bothering with acquiring a biblical theology, but arriving at a portrayal of God that suits his fancy and has no biblical support at all, and he himself being the one that uses a one-sided emphasis. Only love. God does not have a most glorious attribute and it would be impossible for Him to have an attribute that was superior to all His other attributes. All His attributes are equally glorious, all of the time. He cannot love people more than He hates evil, and therefore allow love to accept evil. His wrath against evil is a product of His righteousness. His judgment of sin is equal to His demand for righteousness. He cannot love what He hates. Not to mention the demand upon God to be love is far greater than even the demands we place on our own love. In our lives we discriminate within love. We do not love our neighbors wife in the same way we love our own wife etc. and yet Hunt, and all the countless others who base their objection to the doctrines of election and predestination in Reformed theology on that one thing---it is not fair, and it would not be love unless God loved all people equally and in the same way.

All the arguments following in Hunt's rebuttal, point by point against White, always misstate and/or misunderstand what White has said. Sound familiar? Is this a blindness caused by the overriding tradition, that nearly all Christian's alive today began with? That of "Invite Jesus into your heart and you will be saved."? That of, man chooses whether to be saved or not. A blindness so complete that they are unable to understand what it being said? Or an intentional blindness that refuses to hear and tries to drown it out by repeating the same things and the same scripture over and over, and never closely examines or considers, or responds to, what is being said?

The Reformed Baptist sets a premise, the eternal decree of God, and supports it step by step with Scripture---the self revealed God---and sums up with a conclusion.
The entire thing is based on who God is.

The anti Reformed attacks the eternal decree of God by attacking people and and "ism. Mentions only one characteristic of God, that being love, and that defined by Hunt HImself, not the Bible, except with one isolated scripture, isolated from its context and isolated from the whole counsel of God, "God is love." He never gives any support against the eternal decree of God but attacks White's position by misstating it every step of the way. It does not have God, and His freedom as its center as it should be, since He is the Creator. It has the creature and its freedom as the only concern. In his entire rebuttal on just this one issue, God is in the periphery. And he says all he says, and then does not bother to give a summary conclusion.
"Yet wisdom is justified by her children." (Luke 7:35)

Well written post.

"The entire thing is based on who God is."

In fact, that applies to absolutely everything Created —all principle, all precept, all fact.​

 

[makesends]

Dave Hunt has written at least one worthwhile read, and it maybe have been well-received even by Monergists (I say this, but I read it while still migrating to a Monergistic persuasion, and haven't read it since, so...). The Seduction of Christianity, written to counter a book on 'disciplines of the spiritual life', if I remember right, which suggested some extravagant uses of the imagination, and which referenced quotes from a New Age guru for positive validity.

To me, anyway, it was a necessary book, to warn against some of the thinking creeping into the church, thinking that even produce favorable mention by the pastor of my church, though thank God he took it no further than that.

Maybe that was a springboard for him to dive into other areas of the pool.

 

[Arial]

Dave Hunt has written at least one worthwhile read, and it maybe have been well-received even by Monergists (I say this, but I read it while still migrating to a Monergistic persuasion, and haven't read it since, so...). The Seduction of Christianity, written to counter a book on 'disciplines of the spiritual life', if I remember right, which suggested some extravagant uses of the imagination, and which referenced quotes from a New Age guru for positive validity.

To me, anyway, it was a necessary book, to warn against some of the thinking creeping into the church, thinking that even produce favorable mention by the pastor of my church, though thank God he took it no further than that.

Maybe that was a springboard for him to dive into other areas of the pool.

I do not remember the name of the book I read but it was in the late 80's or early 90's while I too was a "free willer." And it was specifically about the name it and claim it teaching, which I agreed with already. At least that there was something wrong with it but I was too young in Christ to put it all together. If I read the book now I would probably see a lot of bad theology and exegesis in other areas. He of course was right about some things, but much of it would also fall apart when his synergistic, man centered view is laid over it.

In White's book he refers to this theology and doctrine as tradition and people get so locked into their traditions that they cannot see the forest for the trees. I had never looked at it as tradition but that is exactly what it is.

Hunt, like most people alive today, including you and me, came to Christ with that teaching of man is saved when he chooses Christ, and nothing else. No other options mentioned or discussed. So, the newly saved have been counting on their choice from spiritual birth onward, being fed on it. They have never, for the most part, questioned it and read all scripture through that lens. It is a fearful thing, after believing one thing, and absolutely trusting in that (which is the wrong place to rest one's trust) to let go of it.

With the rising from the "dead" of Reformed theology, churches have had to deal with it. And as sincere as they may be, so locked into tradition are they, the do it the only way they are equipped to deal with it. A repulsion to the idea they see of who God would be if Reformed is true. They would question their own salvation that has been resting on their choice all these years. They reject it without ever closely examining it and checking it against Scripture in a consistent exegetical way, starting with who God is. Mostly I would say, they do not know how to do this and actually think they are doing it. The idea of believing that is stated in scripture in over and over again, (Those who believe. Believe and you will be saved etc.) has actually gone out the window, and been replaced with choosing. Salvation is verified not by what they believe, but by what they chose.

Unwittingly, the synergistic view has formed God in its own image, and ignored the self-revealed God of the Scriptures, is afraid to look at Him in any other way, and developed an entirely man centered, therefore man made doctrines, religion. So bound by this tradition is he that he cannot even hear any other view or examine it. He cannot even recognize proper exegesis when it is placed before him or see the difference between that and what he calls his own exegesis that is actually eisegesis. (A subjective method of interpretation by introducing one's own opinions or presuppositions into the original.) Quite often he accuses the opponent of doing what he is doing, but then does not provide any actual exegesis but only a repetition of what he has already said or a repeat of the "proof" text irregardless of the fact that he has been shown that his interpretation makes a direct contradiction of other texts with those texts presented. He simply denies there is a contradiction.

This is what adhering to tradition, trusting in tradition, instead of truth does, as the Catholics also have done. It makes one terrified to leave it. But by the grace of God, and nothing less than His grace, in spite of this, His sheep are still able to hear His voice and they do follow Him.

 

[His clay]

That's why I like Moderated Debates, but even then it can be like 'Nailing down Jell-O'. I think having the Moderator being able to Score and Call Fouls, would be the answer. I would like to see something like this here...

What do you think? Would you like to do something like this for Posters here?

It sounds like fun and/or I wouldn't mind it. The only problem is the time factor. In order to moderate, I would have to invest myself in the reading process. There are multiple levels of reading that I utilize: skim, quick read, pleasure read, slow read, reading while underlining and interacting in the margins, etc. The point being, in order to moderate well, I would need to read a lot slower, and this would take more time than I have. The idea sounds great, if I had infinite time to burn.

 

[ReverendRV]

It sounds like fun and/or I wouldn't mind it. The only problem is the time factor. In order to moderate, I would have to invest myself in the reading process. There are multiple levels of reading that I utilize: skim, quick read, pleasure read, slow read, reading while underlining and interacting in the margins, etc. The point being, in order to moderate well, I would need to read a lot slower, and this would take more time than I have. The idea sounds great, if I had infinite time to burn.

I was thinking the Moderator could read a Private Debate at least once a day. Perhaps when one Debater complained that a Post needs to be read by a Moderator, the discussion could wait for the Moderator before advancing. It could possibly be a long Debate. Perhaps the Debate Topic could be short, to help with this? Perhaps Posters would agree to be patient, if the Moderator showed up daily?

 

[David1701]

Hunt definitely tries to avoid his weakness. Hence, because his exegetical skills are lacking, he uses a myriad of proof-texts. White, who has clearly superior exegetical skills, has the greater depth when explaining the meaning of key verses. Quality vs quantity.

The first time I read through the book the above issue stuck out like a sore thumb. We may also categorize it as superficial vs in-depth understanding of the passages in question.

Certainly true; however, it's more than that: Hunt (and others like him) have a heart problem, not only a head problem. They not only disagree with God's sovereignty in salvation, but they hate it (and this often comes out, once the civil veneer of debate begins to wear off). You often find phrases like "I could never worship a God like that.", or, "Your God is a monster.", etc..

From people who are very young in the faith, I can understand such a fleshly reaction; but, from professing Christians of years, or decades, of experience, such a reaction makes me very much want to avoid them and warn others to do the same.

 

[His clay]

I was thinking the Moderator could read a Private Debate at least once a day. Perhaps when one Debater complained that a Post needs to be read by a Moderator, the discussion could wait for the Moderator before advancing. It could possibly be a long Debate. Perhaps the Debate Topic could be short, to help with this? Perhaps Posters would agree to be patient, if the Moderator showed up daily?

I appreciate how you are trying to accommodate. Even with your attempt to accommodate, I'm still too much of a hit-and-miss kind of poster. I just get busy at times, and so online forums get neglected. I doubt that posters would be ok with waiting for a week or two at a time.

 

[ReverendRV]

I appreciate how you are trying to accommodate. Even with your attempt to accommodate, I'm still too much of a hit-and-miss kind of poster. I just get busy at times, and so online forums get neglected. I doubt that posters would be ok with waiting for a week or two at a time.

I'm just trying to make CCAM better...

 

[makesends]

I appreciate how you are trying to accommodate. Even with your attempt to accommodate, I'm still too much of a hit-and-miss kind of poster. I just get busy at times, and so online forums get neglected. I doubt that posters would be ok with waiting for a week or two at a time.

If only for practical reasons, waiting that long can really mess up a line of thinking. On the other hand, it can be good discipline, good exercise of the mind.

 

[prism]

I read that book about 15 years ago and walked away disappointed. I felt Dave Hunt was skirting his Arminian position and James had a field day.

 

[Josheb]

I just started reading Debating Calvinism with Dave Hunt and James White.........

I read that book about 15 years ago and walked away disappointed. I felt Dave Hunt was skirting his Arminian position and James had a field day.

Yes, I found Hunt's end of that debate wanting as well. But, to be fair, he was out of his league trying to match skills with White. I've also since learned that many Arms also find Hunt a very poor apologist for their views.

 

[prism]

Yes, I found Hunt's end of that debate wanting as well. But, to be fair, he was out of his league trying to match skills with White. I've also since learned that many Arms also find Hunt a very poor apologist for their views.

Hunt is better at exposing cultural seduction of Christianity and how the culture influences the Church.