Talking Out Of Turn

The book Debating Calvinism is basically a debate between two Christian gentlemen, James White and Dave Hunt, on the merits of Calvinism. It’s divided into two main sections—“Calvinism Affirmed” and “Calvinism Denied,” which are each in turn divided into seven subsections, for a total of 14 subsections (seven subsections within each of the two main sections). There are also introductory as well as concluding remarks by both gentlemen at the beginning and at the end of the book. In the first section, “Calvinism Affirmed,” White initiates a topic for debate, Hunt writes a Response, White then answers with a Defense, Hunt makes Final Remarks, and to close White makes his Final Remarks. In the second section, “Calvinism Denied,” the order is reversed—it is Hunt who initiates a topic for debate, White writes a Response, Hunt then answers with a Defense, White makes Final Remarks, and to close Hunt makes his Final Remarks. So for example, in the second of the seven subsections in “Calvinism Affirmed” White writes about “Man’s Inability,” Hunt writes a Response, White then a Defense, Hunt makes Final Remarks, and White makes Final Remarks. Thus, in two sections each with seven subsections for a total of 14 subsections, each man has an opportunity to debate the other on a topic of his choice.

Insofar as using this book as a helpful resource to understand what historical Calvinism actually teaches, whether or not you may agree with it (I was more or less on the fence before beginning this book, although slightly leaning toward Calvinism), this book offers a solid and easy to understand introduction, informing the reader how Calvinism attempts to resolve various theological issues. Thus, I recommend this book for those interested in finding out to what extent that which is commonly known within the Christian community as Calvinism is biblically based.

But as far as an actual debate, where according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary “debate” refers to “a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides,” I don’t quite recommend this book because there’s not much of a debate that goes on. The two sides are not at all “matched.” Instead, it’s utterly one-sided, with Hunt sadly getting pummeled by White. It’s in part such a beating, I think, because Hunt refuses to debate Calvinism as it has been historically taught, but rather debates what he believes Calvinism to be; Hunt does not debate what Calvinism actually teaches, but rather what he “thinks” Calvinism teaches. Hunt has already made up his own mind about Calvinism’s basic doctrines and proceeds to attack such a version of Calvinism, despite the countless times White has to reiterate to Hunt, “This is simply not what Calvinism teaches!” White himself notes this in his concluding remarks to the entire debate, in a quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon:

And now, having made these remarks upon terms used, 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 sometime, 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?

Obviously, there is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing and debating on such serious and weighty matters. In fact, in my view, debate is even necessary for the edification of the saints, since in the best kinds of debates truth and falsehood may be tested one against the other with strong, broad strokes, and though the sparks may fly, brilliant, illuminating light might likewise be produced as a result. But the problem is that Hunt doesn’t even engage in the battle since he doesn’t actually address what Calvinism teaches, “what Calvinism really is,” but is sadly stuck “rail[ing] at fictions which, save in [his] brain, were never in existence.” Indeed, he is fighting a windmill which he imagines to be the giant “Calvinism,” but regrettably it’s merely a figment of his own imagination. I sorely wish that Hunt had simply addressed White’s claims and sought as best as he could to overthrow them according to the Word of God rather than expending his time and energy attacking things that White never claimed at all.

Thus, to me, the main problem seems to be that while Scripture is central to White’s arguments and his views peripheral, it is the reverse with Hunt: Hunt’s views on Calvinism are central to his arguments while Scripture is peripheral. White’s starting point is the Bible, wherein he tries to allow the text to speak for itself as much as possible. And based on this exegesis of the text, White attempts to build his case by trying to understand what the verses and passages teach. Hunt’s starting point is his own views on Calvinism, wherein he proceeds to find verses and passages to buttress his views.

Now you might perhaps understand why there is some hesitation (not to mention frustration) on my part in recommending the book: the book is completely lopsided. To reiterate, White does a bang-up job in presenting the “Calvinism Affirmed” side, but Hunt was unfortunately a poor choice for the “Calvinism Denied” side. White’s responses are learned and fair: one receives a significant amount of well-reasoned information about Calvinism whether or not one agrees with his arguments. However, the same sadly cannot be said of Hunt. Hunt’s responses are more like superficial, knee-jerk reactions to what he “thinks” or “assumes” Calvinism teaches; he does not attack the points and issues White brings up, but rather attacks his own preconceived notions of Calvinism. So instead of responding with something like, “Okay, yes, this is White’s interpretation of such and such a passage, which I disagree with, so now let me give you what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the passage,” Hunt sets up a strawman, for example, “Calvinism teaches that God predestines people to go to hell,” and then proceeds to refute this strawman. Or, “Calvinism teaches that man has no free will,” and then sets upon refuting that strawman. And even though White repeatedly demonstrates through both the writings of avowed Calvinists as well as the Bible itself that Calvinism teaches neither of these things, nor other things that Hunt claims Calvinism teaches, his words go in one ear and out the other. Thus Hunt not only fails to address the verses or passages that White brings up, but he further fails to bring up relevant Scripture to articulate his viewpoint that Calvinism is not biblical. He does bring up a lot of irrelevant verses and passages, though, so much so that one wonders if he is not trying to overwhelm the reader with the sheer amount of verses quoted, rather than seeking to engage White in terms of what the biblical text is or is not teaching.

Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not at all trying to be unfair to Hunt, as I truly would love to hear the other side of the debate fairly and cogently represented, but it just doesn’t happen here. Having read the book, I suppose I wish that White had been able to debate someone else instead of Hunt, so that we the readers could have received a more balanced perspective on the issue. Perhaps someone like Norman Geisler, whose book, Chosen But Free, White made a rebuttal to in his own The Potter’s Freedom, would’ve been a better choice to represent the other side, since he is, it seems, judicious in his approach toward the Biblical text, trying to dissect it and analyze it with a certain depth and scholarship unfortunately lacking in Hunt’s presentation; he does not merely try to shoe horn verses into predisposed beliefs about Calvinism. Although the obvious problem with Geisler would be that he does not believe himself to be an Arminian, but then again you wouldn’t necessarily need Geisler to affirm Arminianism, only to deny Calvinism (the two positions are not necessarily the same, although they obviously can be). A book debate between White and Geisler might’ve given Geisler a chance to respond to White from a slightly different angle. Or if not Geisler, then surely another scholar or at least scholarly-minded individual could’ve been found to debate White—I dunno, maybe someone like Hank Hanegraaff? (Apologies, I haven’t really given it much thought, obviously, apart from this moment.) At any rate, I really think there should’ve been a better representative for the “con” side than Hunt. Having said this, again, I’m not at all suggesting anything negative about Hunt as a person—he in fact seems like a wonderful, sincere believer who has done a great service in other areas for the kingdom of God—but only that, in regard to the debate on Calvinism, Hunt is unfortunately out of his league. Whoever or whatever entity organized this debate perhaps should have realized this beforehand and found a more suitably qualified debating opponent for White, so that the readers would benefit more from being able to hear both sides with equal erudition rather than having the debate justifiably dominated by White.

To conclude, again, I’m not happy that Hunt did not hold his own against White. I really wish he had, so that readers would’ve benefited from the exchange. As it is, though, in this book White makes an articulate, overwhelmingly convincing case for Calvinism without the least compelling rejoinder from Hunt. White’s half of the debate is so highly informative, though, that on its own, perhaps as an introduction to Calvinism, it might have merited a full five stars. But since it was coupled with Hunt’s presentation, I docked it a single star, for a total of four out of five stars. (And I think I’m being lenient.)