Books on Calvinism/Arminianism

You mean the same "outstanding man of God" who lied about what other people actually believe?? Who misrpresented both church history and doctrine to try to make his points??? Hunt's ridiculous book has been exposed by many. It was a book that even his friends told him not to publish. They told him it was full of too many errors and fallacies to put out there. He should have listened. Everyone who reads this book should do so with a discerning mind and be careful to check his footnotes against the original sources to see what they really said. A little homework very quickly dispenses with the notion that this was a good book.

 

But apparently not by you.

Have any examples? Say... one or two that perhaps may strengthen your point? Or, have you done any homework?

 

This has all been rehashed here before, so no one is being critical out of ignorance. We might be less than enthusiatic about getting into it again, though, because we've been there--done that.

But I'll give you one--the one I think is the most glaring: Hunt takes Spurgeon's absolutely classic description of Limited Atonement--the atonement is unlimited in MERIT, but limited in INTENT, quotes a section of the part affirming the unlimited MERIT, and concludes Spurgeon did not believe in limited atonement.

If someone knows so little about the doctrine of limited atonement that they mistake a statement about the infinite MERIT of the atonement as evidence of someone denying limited atonement, then they aren't knowledgeable enough to publish a book on the Cal/Arm debate.

 

No need to reinvent the wheel and repeat what so many others have said.

Spurgeon on limited atonement for one ... He tried to make Spurgeon believe something Spurgeon explicitly refuted. And he did so by quoting from the beginning of a paragraph and the end of it, while skipping the middle. Why did he skip the middle?? Because in the middle, Spurgeon refuted what Hunt was trying to prove. So Hunt conveniently left that out.

He is a fraud in this book. It has been pointed out in numerous places.

 

I can easily see why you would be very hesitant about taking on such a thoroughly documented work.

What the two of you have just proven is that you are good readers of James White, but probably have not even seen Dave Hunt's book, much less read or considered it. James White, in his Open Letter, refers to Hunt's page 19 quote of Spurgeon from his autobiography. Hunt does not quote any in error. If you have vol. 1 of Spurgeon's Autobiography, "The Early Years" by Banner of Truth Trust, you can find the quote on page 171. This quote appears in the very first chapter of Hunt's book, "Why This Book?" Neither Mr. White nor yourselves bothered to look at his chapter 16 on Limited Atonement. You accuse him of trying to make Spurgeon believe something he refuted, but in the chapter on Limited Atonement he states that Spurgeon did not believe in Universal Atonement and quotes him again stating that he did not. (What Love Is This? p. 249)

Mr. Hunt deals with this spurious accusation in his May 16, 2002 response to White. He said,

Well, it is obvious he is right that it is the ONE that impressed the readers of James White's Open Letter, namely you two. He goes on,

So the answer to your snippeted accusations has already been made long ago, and all that I can say is "Amen". Spurgeon himself admits to holding views which to many seem contradictory. And yes, in his later years, Spurgeon often did not tow the standard Calvinistic line.

Mr. Hunt included an entire chapter regarding Calvinistic ideas on Limited Atonement. In that chapter, he footnotes his sources and extensively quotes from Loraine Boettner, John Piper, Arthur Pink, RC Sproul, Homer Hoeksema, Zane Hodges, and even James White's own "The Potter's Freedom." Funny, isn't it, that Mr. White does not dispute his own quotes! No, he runs to Chapter One to wrench a quote from Spurgeon and misapply it regarding Particular Redemption, while totally ignoring the many, many quotes in the chapter on Limited Atonement, and then accuses Mr. Hunt of impropriety? Hah!

Shouldn't you do a little homework? Like I said before, the book is valuable if, for nothing else, the many, many documented quotes and references within it. The two of you come up with the same, single one accusation made from the Apostle of Prevarication, James White, from a year and a half ago. Calvinists seem very content to read only Calvinist writers.

 

PappaBear, thinking everyone but him is some sort of idiot, said:

What the two of you have just proven is that you are good readers of James White

Uh, yeah, right, all of us are too stupid to have read Spurgeon or Hunt for ourselves. Duh!

 

Actually, the last time Larry got into badmouthing this book, when pushed about it he admitted he hadn't actually read the book for himself.

Jacob.

 

Well, I have read the book for myself, and the allegations of misrepresentation that are levelled against Hunt happen to be quite true . . . notwithstanding Pappa's ridiculous remarks that anyone disagreeing with Hunt must have been brainwashed by James White.

 

Huh? I haven't read James White. I did read the first bit of WLIT?, but will have to admit I didn't finish it. I did read the the first chapter that quoted Spurgeon on LA and was disgusted by what I read, and that's part of the reason I was not interested in finishing the book.

No, he quotes Spurgeon accurately, but he misinterprets the quote. If the quote is put back in context, that he misrepresents it is obvious.

Here is the quote from Spurgeon (and I am looking this up on the internet because I do not own the book. If the page I got this from quotes inaccurately, please let me know. It does seem faithful to what I remember reading.):

I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ’s finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discerns no shore….Having a divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice.

This quote is used by Dave Hunt to prove this statement:

So in Dave Hunt's mind, this statement by Spurgeon is inconsistant with Limited Atonement. It is not. It an intergral part of any explanation of Limited Atonement: Sufficient for all (unlimited in value); efficient for the elect (limited in intent). Why did Dave Hunt not recognize this? Had he not read all the other calvinistic explanations of limited atonement that also include statements about the unlimited merit (or value) of the atonement?

Okay, so I will admit I didn't make it to chapter 16. But can you explain then, if Hunt says in chapter one that "Spurgeon himself.....rejected Limited Atonement...", how he can say in chapter 16 that Spurgeon did not believe in universal atonement and and not be contradicting himself? Can you shed some light on this? Just what exactly is it that Hunt means then, when he says that Spurgeon rejected LA? I am willing to try to understand....

Please! Find one quote from Spurgeon that is inconsistent with Calvinism.

 

Let's look at this quote of DH a little closer:

Yep, Spurgeon agrees with all other Calvinists--no limit to merit. Let's continue:

Yep, once again, agreeing with all other Calvinists. Christ's blood is available only to all who will believe--limited intent.

Huh? He has just explained Spurgeon's viewpoint accurately, and it is exactly what limited atonement states. How does that justify him in quoting him on either side of the issue?

To finish the quote:

It matters diddlysquat to this particular argument if Calvinism is contradictory or not. As long as Spurgeon's statement is consistent with the doctrine of limited atonement (and it is!)--contradictory as Hunt may think that doctrine is--it is UNJUSTIFIED and unscholarly to use this quote on the other side of the argument.

"The error is not mine...." Phooey! There may be errors in Calvinism, but this particular error belongs to Hunt alone. This lame excuse doesn't cut it.

 

You didn't have to push me; I freely admitted it ... if I recall, it was long before you were a part of the conversations on this board. More importantly, I didn't have to read it. Very wise men have rightly said that it is not necessary to read everything. There is limited time and resources; don't waste it on bad theology and bad writing. If you remember, I have also admitted I haven't read Calvin. I simply don't need to.

As for this book, I have talked to those who have read it; I have read the reviews and the exchanges about it; I am very familiar with the book. Everything said in this forum by those who like the book confirmed what we already knew about it. Why should I waste my time reading this tripe?? Those who have read it objectively have pointed out the errors and problems in it. There are many people who have documented it and what I have said about the book comes from that documentation. No one from either side disputes what I have said factually. The quotes are there. It has been shown yet again here tonight. They may dispute the interpretation of it but they cannot dispute the facts of it.

I think part of the problem is that your side is desperate for a refutation that you will seize on anything that has footnotes and documentation and pretend that it is well done. That is a bad way to go about it. Good theological books are not measured by the number of footnotes. When those notes are misused, and when the theology of the opponents is so badly twisted, the book should be ignored. That is why Hunt's book should be abandoned by all, no matter what side you are on. Arminians should cringe in horror at his writing because it is so poorly done in arguing for their side.

Learn this in life: You don't have time to read everything. Read reviews and look for citations. Read with discernment. There is so much junk out there that if we try to read it all, we will never read anything worthwhile.

 

No, he quotes Spurgeon accurately, but he misinterprets the quote. If the quote is put back in context, that he misrepresents it is obvious. </font>[/QUOTE]The quote comes from Hunt's first chapter and the context is meant to represent why he is writing this book. The context of that first chapter is his opposition to the idea that Calvinism is the gospel. Just on the facing page (18) at the bottom, he is quoting Spurgeon as saying,

In the paragraph where he makes the Spurgeon quote with which you so disagree, he starts by saying, "Today there is growing division on this issue..."

Dave Hunt is not a Calvinist. Dave Hunt would not agree with Spurgeon, who is a Calvinist. His book is an exposition of the heresy known today as Calvinism. Therefore, Dave Hunt is not bound and fettered to using Calvinist terminology over Biblical terminology. Even Calvinists are not overly fond of the terms "limited atonement," opting for "particular redemption" instead. What you are not seeing by lifting this one quote out of the first chapter is precisely how to the non-Calvinist the contradictions of "Sufficiency" and "Efficiency" (an unbiblical distinction) are crystal clear. You see no contradiction, but one who limits his doctrine to biblical teaching does.

I believe he does understand this. Go to chapter 16 and read what he is saying about the Calvinist's doctrine of the atonement, and you can see. But don't get offended when you pull out a quote he is using to show Calvinist contradictions as reasons for him to write his book and question what he knows of the Calvinist view of the atonement. Go to where he is discussing that issue. Just remember, his is not a work that supports or agrees with your Calvinism, but one that exposes it for the bad theology it is.

Okay, Spurgeon did reject "limited atonement." His words say such in that quote, and also others of his writings. But Spurgeon IS speaking as a Calvinist. What Spurgeon is particularly condemning is the idea that the Atonement is sufficient only for the elect. But our Calvinist friend will come down decidedly on the side of Particular Redemption, saying that Christ's atonement is only efficient for the elect. In saying this, it is a contradiction of terms. The title of the book, "What Love Is This?" should give you a bit of a hint. Sufficiency/Efficiency semantically says that God could have saved everyone, but didn't, that God loved some and did not love all, that Christ died only for some, not died for all. Any Calvinist, Spurgeon included, is deemed contradictory by Mr. Hunt. Is it any wonder? Even Spurgeon himself said that it appears contradictory to many.

Please see this link. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm It is Spurgeon's sermon, "Salvation By Knowing The Truth." Before you look closely at it, though, ask yourself how most Calvinists interpret 1Tim 2:3,4? Then see what Spurgeon has to say about it.

 

I would be interested in knowing what "objective" (i.e. non-Cal) reviewer you found who pointed out errors and problems in the book? William MacDonald? Chuck Smith? Tim LaHaye, perhaps? Maybe Elmer Towns? Was it Joe Jordan from Word of Life?

Or are you guilty of being so desperate for a refutation of this work that you accept whatever turpid vitriol some Calvinist writer puts out about it?

Anyone who reads this thread and the responsive posts by Calvinists on this forum should read the book, if for nothing else to see what has the Cals in such a defensive "all up in arms" posture!

 

But ethics should bind him to use Calvinist terms as Calvinist would use them. Hunt's book is a very unethical treatment. When Calvinists read Hunt's book, they do not see their doctrine addressed. That is a serious problem and Hunt was warned about it before he published the book.

On this you are wrong. Let's pretend that I have one million dollars in my bank account. Is that enough to buy dinner?? Most certainly. It is sufficient to cover your bill. Will it buy your dinner?? Nope ... not a chance. It is not efficient to pay your bill. You see, the very simple distinction between sufficiency and efficiency is very easy to see.

In terms of the atonement, even you cannot believe that the atonement is efficient for everyone since I assume you are not a universalist. The only ones who deny the sufficient/efficient distinction are universalists.

This is the same type of shoddy argumentation that Hunt uses. Spurgeon clearly affirmed a limited atonement. It is dishonest and unethical to say otherwise.

Who else would it be efficient for??

The contradiction stems from your misunderstanding.

What CAlvinist said this?? I think you are making stuff up. The Bible says that God loved the world. Calvinism accepts that. But here is yet another place where you need to put aside what you wish calvinists believed and accept what we really believe.

Hunt showed an inability to understand the issues and properly address them. That is his problem, not ours.

I read briefly and quickly through this and didn't see anything that Calvinism would disagree with. Calvinism doesn't really have an issue with that verse, although there are different Calvinists who interpret it differently. By the same toke, arminians do the same thing on many verses. The fact that Calvinists disagree on the interpretation of a particular verse proves nothing, which you and Hunt should understand. It is unfortunate that you do not.

 

Haven't read any of those. There are articles by different people on the previously listed website. If you had read that, you should have long ago abandoned your fondness for this book, even if you still hold the position. In addition, I have read other reviews by those that have no been circulated widely. The truth is out there; if you missed it, that is unfortunate. Hopefully you will find it.

Not desperate at all. In fact, I really don't care. Those who are promoting this book have already indoctrinated their listeners and thus one of two things will happen: 1) Their listeners will love it and believe it; or 2) Their listeners will read it and study it and see the errors. Either way, in my circle of ministry it is not an issue. No one is reading it; no one even knows it exists for the most part. I have tried to faithfully teach the word of God and as a result, this type of stuff is not a great concern. The word of God is clear enough to overcome the obfuscations of Hunt.

The danger of it is that people will read it without discernment and without bothering to check out what he says. If everyone would study diligently, comparing this book to Scripture, I would whole-heartedly recommend it becuase it would show its fallacies. On the other hand, it would be such a waste of time that could be more profitably put to use.

Either way, I am not that concerned about it. The book is not that widely read as I understand it. In my current circle of ministry it is not an issue so I don't even worry about it. The most unfortunate thing is that people are not bothering to do the homework on it.

 

The previously listed website is nothing but another James White mouthpiece. Any man who would call that site "objective" cannot be one who puts much value in telling the truth.

Hahahaha! No .. that is why there is so much said about it. Nobody is really reading it and few have even heard of it! LOL! One wonders why Dave Hunt would bother to spend so much money on a new edition since the first one sold so poorly! (thigh slaping guffaw!)

 

No sir, it is very justified to use a man's own words against him. It is more scholarly to allow a man to hang himself than to put your own words into his mouth in order to do so. Hunt was not quoting Mr. Spurgeon to say that the two agree, but to point out the contradictory nature of what Cals say. And obviously, he did just that.

 

No sir, not anymore than ethics would bind me use Calvinist terms the way a Calvinist would use them in debate -- or to use a Jehovah's Witnesses meaning of terms such as "hell" in the way they would use them in debate. Secondly, you seem to have a serious problem in understanding that Hunt's book was not written TO Calvinists, but ABOUT them. It has already been noted, and you yourself have provided a good example of the fact, that Cals will not read non-Cal literature, much less a book subtitled "Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God." Therefore, Mr. Hunt can speak as a Christian to Christians.

For you, yes. But not very biblical.

Oh really? Is that statement right up there with the one that says everyone is either a Calvinist or an Arminian? What gives you or anyone the right to label everyone who does not believe as you do as some other -ism?

No, I am not a Universalist. Yes, I believe Christ died for all men. I believe that He is Lord OF ALL, both the living and the dead. I believe that He even purchased the false prophets and false teachers, who are unquestionably lost. (2Peter 2:1) Believing such, I am not a universalist. Believing such, neither do I believe in your Calvinist efficiency distinction. That is the problem. Calvinists invent unbiblical terms and define them in a sordid attempt to redefine Biblical doctrines in those unbibilical terms.

This is the same type of shoddy argumentation that Hunt uses. Spurgeon clearly affirmed a limited atonement. It is dishonest and unethical to say otherwise.</font>[/QUOTE]Spurgeon clearly affirmed Particular Redemption. Read the quote, man. He also just as clearly affirmed that, "Having a divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice." To the normal Non-Cal -- the target audience for this book -- the contradiction will be clear.

Hunt showed an inability to understand the issues and properly address them. That is his problem, not ours. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, he mentioned that you would say that in his book. But you haven't even read his book to know whether he understood any issues or properly address them. You have only read ad hominem regarding his book.

And it is not surprising to me that you would miss the statement by Spurgeon where he says he disagrees with his "Calvinist friends."

 

Had you bothered to read it, you would know that very little of it is written by James White. Objective deals with factuality. Therefore, it is objective because it deals in large measure though not exclusively with the mere facts that Hunt references.

Once again you show yourself to be totally unethical and that is totally unacceptable. Read my quote. I will put it here to save you the trouble. I have highlighted a portion that you skipped right over.

It is absolutely unacceptable for you, claiming to be a believer, to misrepresent what I clearly said. That is unethical (which you admit in your next post that you don't care about). It is wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself.

This is part of the problem with Hunt's book and with your mentality. You have decided what you want to refute and you will completely ignore people's words in order to do it. That is unbelievable. You are completely in the wrong for such tactics and you owe an apology for it. You cannot simply take other people's words and make them mean something else. That is the heart of the problem with your misunderstanding and subsequent hatred of the subject under discussion. You hate but you have no idea what it really means. You show time and time again that you are willing to twist words to achieve your own purposes. I do not have words to express my disappointment in that method. I have never done that to you or anyone else. I expect better from someone who claims to be a believer.

For the record, I can tell you how many people in my congregation know that book exists and you can count them on one hand. Thus my point above is absolutely true and you have twisted it to accomplish your own purpose. That is unethical on your part.

 

You are wrong on this. It is no wonder you have a hard time communicating. If you are going to refute a JW's view of hell, you better talk about the hell he believes in so you can show it is wrong. Words mean things by virtue of the author's intent.

You are wrong in your implication that Calvinists are not Christians. Secondly, I have no problem understanding this at all. Many Calvinists will read non-calvinist literature. I myself do (showing that you are not telling the truth). I simply didn't read this one. If Hunt desires to speak as a Christian, then he should follow the biblical admonition to speak the truth. His misrepresentation of the truth is sinful.

Thirdly, if he wants to refute Calvinism, then he needs to address Calvinism, rather than this straw man that he has set up.

For you, yes. But not very biblical. </font>[/QUOTE]But it is biblical as the teaching about people going to hell demonstrates. Christ's death was sufficient for the sins of the people in hell; it was not efficient for them, that is, it did not pay for their sins. We can debate the reason why it didn't pay for it. That is really at the heart of the issue here. But we cannot say he paid for their sins becuase that would make God unjust, sending people to hell for sins that have already been paid for. That will probably go right past you but you need to give some serious thought to it.

Reality. And yes, really. People who sins have been effectively paid for are not in hell. Period. To say otherwise is to make God unjust in that he sends people to hell for a debt that has already been paid.

Actually, the word you are looking for is abiblical, that is they are outside of the Bible. They are not unbiblical in that they contradict the Bible. A term is a description. In that sense, it can be invented. In reality, it doesn't matter what the term is; it matters what is the doctrine taught by that term. In that respect, to deny the sufficiency/efficiency distinction is to place oneself in contradiction to the clearly revealed word of God.

The discussion is not about "Did Christ die for the sins of the world?" Both Calvinist and Arminians agree on that. If you think that is the question, then you show yet again how unfamiliar you are with the subject at hand.

This is the same type of shoddy argumentation that Hunt uses. Spurgeon clearly affirmed a limited atonement. It is dishonest and unethical to say otherwise.</font>[/QUOTE]Spurgeon clearly affirmed Particular Redemption. Read the quote, man. He also just as clearly affirmed that, "Having a divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice." To the normal Non-Cal -- the target audience for this book -- the contradiction will be clear.</font>[/QUOTE][/qb]Did you read this paragraph before you posted this?? This doesn't even make sense ... Look at my quote of you. You said, "Spurgeon did reject 'limited atonement.'" Then you reply with "Spurgeon clearly affirmed particular redemption." Make up your mind. What do you think Spurgeon actually believed?? (Hint: You were right in the latter, not the former.) Spurgeon did believe in the standard Calvinist position on limited atonement. There is no contradiction in that.

The problem is again found in your misunderstanding and your willingness to learn. If you can convince your finite mind to understand "infinite sacrifice," then you can understand the latter quote. But having a deep well does not mean that all the water gets used in it. Having an infinite well means that all water (or blood as the case is) will never be used. There is no limit to infinity and that is why the infinite sacrifice is unlimited in its sufficiency. However, it is quite clear from Scripture that Christ's atonement does not actually pay for the sins of the unbelievers. It is those sins that send them to hell (Rev 20:11-15; 21:8). Quite cleary, they go to hell for their sins. If Christ paid for those sins, then God is unjust, charging the sinner eternally for sins that were paid for by Christ.