Debating Calvinism | Dave Hunt & James White

Dave Hunt & James White. Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views. Multnomah, 2004. 432 pp.

One of the purposes of a debate in the formal sense of the word is to persuade. The object is to persuade the audience that your position is the appropriate view to adopt. Over several generations the debate over the theological views developed by John Calvin has become more and more heated. In response, James White (the champion of Reformed Theology) and Dave Hunt (the Opponent of Calvinism) have participated in a lengthy formal debate. The debate has been removed from the classical oral format and collected in the volume Debating Calvinism.

The book’s format is presented in the form of a highly structured debate in which each author is given opportunity to make and develop assertions based on his personal point of view concerning the issue of Calvinism. This statement is followed by a response from the opponent, a defense of the original statement, and final remarks by both authors (each taking his turn). For example, in part one of the book—“Calvinism Affirmed”—chapter one is arranged in this manner:

“God’s Eternal Decree” (a statement of one of the basic tenets of Calvinist Theology) by White

• A response by Hunt
• A defense by White
• Final remarks by Hunt
• Final remarks by White

Each ensuing chapter is similarly arranged with the authors taking turns making statements, refuting those statements or defending them.

As a book this arrangement makes reading cumbersome and at the same time divides the reading into bite-sized pieces that might be easier to digest by the reader. White actually does suggest that the meat of the material lies in the first and second sections of each chapter (that is, the statement and the response). Anything beyond this (the defense and final statements) has a tendency to be repetitive. A danger when trying to review the book is to become drawn into the debate itself and decree a winner. In point of fact, a quick look at Amazon.com shows that many readers do just that—determine the winner of the debate.

In the realm of exegesis, both writers have a tendency to read the Scriptures in such a way to support their point of view, even to the point of arguing over the meaning of specific words in the verse. Both authors accuse each other of eisegesis rather than true exegesis because of this. Hunt and White are both adept in the art of proof-texting—that is, using verses or phrases as a support of their own personal view. Hunt has a tendency to string bits and pieces of passages together ad nauseam to base his claims of scriptural beliefs. White, on the other hand, is a little more subtle in his use of the Bible to support his viewpoint, indicating that his interpretation of certain passages or bits of passages is the definitive viewpoint.

As a debate the use of supporting materials (outside of the Scripture) is lopsided. One of the strict rules that my teacher drilled into me when I was debating was that I must support my arguments with documentation. White, while using the Scripture extensively, has a tendency to use footnoting for the purpose of building his argument more or explanation. Hunt on the other hand suggests extensive use of the library by citing sources from both Calvinist and non-Calvinist authors. This is not to say that White totally ignores the use of source materials, but to indicate that his use of footnotes (a legitimate use) tends to be more along the line of developing the argument more.

If indeed the writers are bent on persuading the audience (the reader) to affirm their point of view, both fall short. Instead, readers approaching the book from the side of Reformed Theology find that White is more articulate, more convincing, and ultimately wins the debate. Others, leaning more toward a viewpoint that vilifies the Calvinist viewpoint—even to the point of spitting the word “Calvinism” out of their mouths with a grimace of distaste—tend to lift up Hunt as the more astute, better founded, and final victor in the debate. Either author seems more intent on pointing out the shortcomings of the other’s point of view that neither seems to build a persuasive argument in their own behalf (although White spends a few more pages building a case, both seem to be more intent on proving how the other is either wrong or inadequate in their argumentation). Finally, the cover of the book shouts to the reader, “Is God free to love anyone He wants? Do you have any choice in your own salvation? It’s time to find out.” The debate sadly doesn’t provide a convincing conclusion for anyone who has not already decided one side of the issue or the other.

I would recommend the book only to those who are looking to learn more about Calvinist teachings. The only readers who might be persuaded one way or the other are those who might not be aware of the debate itself and just need a peg to hang their theological hat on (regardless of the side they choose). Theologians who already have their opinions planted either inside or outside the garden of Calvinism will find little of value in this debate. On the other hand, if a reader is fond of the formal argumentation encountered in the debate format, he will find this volume an invigorating experience.

Benjamin Potter
Sr. Pastor, First Baptist Church of Mulberry Grove
September 11, 2007

Like this post? Subscribe to our feed .