Books on Calvinism/Arminianism

...then speak as an authority on a book you haven't even read.

Funny stuff. </font>[/QUOTE]If you read my defense above, you would understand why I have said what I have said. I haven't spoken as an authority. I have merely pointed out what is common knowledge. I haven't even discussed this book in much depth. It simply isn't worth the time for me ...

 

Well, according to your own point, this is very relevant. In this thread you basically encourage people to not read this book. Now, I have to look at your history and see if you know what you are talking about. Looking at what you told me in the past compared to what you are telling people now, I see that you 1) change your opinion in order to accomplish your goal (one should read, one should not waste their time) 2) misrepresent people who point this out (saying their opinion was uneducated when you had no basis to even know that) and 3) when that misrepresentation is pointed out you admit you simply don't care (calling it irrelevant).

The relevance is for all those who might take your advice to make up their own minds. They not only should know where you stand, according to you they need to know.

It also appears to me that the only research you suggested in the previous thread was "reading the book." I don't remember you pointing out that other research was acceptable in the learning process. After all, my post was based on "other" research and according to you I "knew nothing" on the subject matter because I had not read the book. You said that you read the book and I should do the same.

At any rate, if we get right down to it, I believe you would really prefer that we do our research based upon people that YOU trust. If I tell you that I researched the book based upon favorable reviews of the book, would that satisfy you?

I have no problem with letting people make up their own minds. I just wanted to point out what you said then as opposed to what you are saying now. Though it may seem irrelevant to you, if it matters to them, they can make that distinction based upon the facts. For those of us who do indeed do research, I would find it very relevant. But that's just me.

~Lorelei

 

While people here may deny this, still many Calvinists do affirm that. At this point, the more moderate Calvinists here just chuck that up to "hyper-Calvinism", and continue their claim it is "not what they believe". But for one thing, Hunt's book is aimed at Calvinism in general, and while he could have done a better job at acknowledging the different strains of Calvinism, still, you cannot justly call it "dishonest". White for one does believe in reprobation (that God deliberately creates people for hell-- "that is their purpose", he even says. Most here have been denying that. ASll you can say is that it is not your belief. You cannot in that respect speak on beflaf/in defense of all of "calvinism" as being "misrepresented". Also, just about every Calvinist uses Romans 9 "Jacob and Esau" to prove that God "loves" certain people and "hates" others, in a way that determines salvation and damnation. How now can you deny that? Based on this, Hunt is accused of lying on Calvinism!

I've seen this tossed around, but who are all of these people? Might they be Calvinists who liked his other books, but naturally objected when he turned his attention to their doctrine?

At Whatsloveisthis.com, check out their Dialogue Box. all they do is deny Hunt's Christianity, and anybody who posts disagreement with Calvinism is accused of "unchristian" slander of Calvinists, and eventually booted off the board. Even their "Non-Calvinist" who replies to Hunt, is really just a Lutheran who frequents the board, who agrees with Calvinists on T and U, so for the purpose of those points is Calvinist.
No, not an "objective" site at all. You wonder why such defensiveness and overboard trashing of a person's character is necessary if they are standing for the truth.

 

I am saying that the book is a waste of time. If read without discernment, it can be misleading. Did I encourage people not to read this book??? Since you wanted to check my history, allow me to help, citing from things written days ago (instead of months ago where you went):

So in fact, I did actually encourage people to read the book, contrary to your assertion. It was a qualified encouragement, followed by an assertion that in the end it would be a waste of time that could be better put to use with some profitable. And I did warn people about it. But I did give some reasons to read the book.

Wrong on all three counts. My opinion now is what it was then. I have not changed it, and I have told you that several times, and showed it from what I said then and what I am saying now. I am not sure where you are confused about that. I believed then, as now, that all things are not profitable to read. But that one should be familiar with a book before making blanket statements about it.

On the second, you yourself admitted your were uneducated about it. You said you had only looked at the website. And that is fine. I said on page three I said, To be honest, when I first looked at the website some months ago, my response was the same. Having Rick Warren's name attached to it made it worse. But then I read some of the book ... Amazing what a little knowledge will to help put aside misconceptions. I previously liked the PDC concept, though as I already said, I don't like the way it is applied in many cases. On the same page I also said, you should at least have an informed opinion on it. The point is that I encouraged you to find out more before making blanket statements. So don't blame me about the education deal; that was your own admission. I have neither the desire nor to need to make you or anyone else look uneducated. (Most of us, including myself, show it very clearly when we are uneducated; we don't need anyone's help. I always hate sticking my foot in my mouth when I comment about something I know nothing about.)

As to three, there was no misrepresentation. My point about irrelevancy had to do with why you were bringing this up now. It certainly had nothing to do with books on Calvinism or Arminianism. It appears it was only an attempt to show some sort of inconsistency on my part. I have shown that I was not inconsistent. You posted a long paragraph about me and one paragraph about Hunt's book. To be relevant, you should have omitted the stuff about me. I don't really care that you talked about me. If I am inconsistent, feel free to point it out. But surely can you understand that discussing me and my reading practices in a forum about what books are good is irrelevant to which books are actually good.

I don't know that they need to know where I stand, or even should know. Where I stand doesn't make that much difference. I know no one in this forum and I am not arrogant enough to think that many are listening to what I say. I enjoy the conversations (usually) and try to offer some insight from my perspective. People can do with it what they want. I am quite sure they are making up their own minds without your posting comments about what I said months ago that are perfectly consistent with what I said here. I routinely encourage people to read other things, not to take my word for it.

That was not the subject there. Had I known this was going to come up later, I certainly would have added it. But I am not prescient ... I wish I was ..

I don't think that is exactly what I said. Your other research consisted of the website to my recollection. It was a good place to start. I recommended following up with more research. The book would be a good place to start. Truth be told, now that I think about it, I have probably read close to as much of Hunt's book in excerpts in reviews than I did of Warren's book. (I haven't counted the words so don't try to catch me in a lie there.) The difference is that I read Hunt's book in other's citations of it; I read Warren's book in its own binding.

I said I read part of it and I did say you should do the same. I don't care whether someone read Hunt's book or not (see my "history" above where I affirm that). Just read it with discernment, as you would read Warren's book.

Well of course ...

I am not disatisfied really. I am merely concerned that some people are putting unjustified stock in this book. I would encourage you to do as I did ... read reviews from both sides.

I agree very much about making distinctions based on the facts. That has been my contention from day one about this book. It is not a book based on the facts. And those who study and think through it can see that. What I said then is the same philosophy I have now. It is communicated in different ways because of the nature of the conversation.

In the end, you like the book, I don't. That's fine. It doesn't matter much to me. Just read with discernment and study, first and foremost in light of the word of God and secondly in light of what the proponents of Calvinism actually say and believe, rather than what Hunt wishes we said and believed.

 

In this context, you call this line an encouragment to read the book?

I hardly found this as an encouragement for people to read Dave Hunt's book in any context.

Yes people who were Calvinists, discouraged him from writing this book. Does that automatically mean it was full of errors, or could it mean it would expose their own?

It is their misunderstanding of what Dave Hunt had to say that caused them to feel this way. They do not understand the true conclusions that must be drawn from their own false and erronious teachings. Dave Hunt points those out and for that he was threatened with losing some of those friendships.

Of course these people think his book is full of errors and fallacies, they are Calvinists! This book clearly shows how Calvinism misrepresnts God, I am certain they had quite a problem with it. I thank the Lord that Dave Hunt would not give into their pressure and published this book!

~Lorelei

 

Of course these people think his book is full of errors and fallacies, they are Calvinists!

There is an obvious difference (overlooked by you) between writing a book that argues against Calvinism, and writing a book that argues against some fictitious position that the author calls "Calvinism." Hunt did the latter and, vis à vis his credibility, shot his bolt.

I thank the Lord that Dave Hunt would not give into their pressure and published this book!

Believe me, there are many of us Calvinists who agree with you. It is never easier to proclaim the truth than when it is clearly set against falsehood.

 

As I said, a qualified encouragement. It was not even the most clear encouragement I gave.

Don't you think that if anyone knows what Calvinists believe, it would be Calvinists??? I think so. It stands to reason that we know what we believe. So when a Calvinist tells Hunt, you have misrepresented our beliefs and you are not arguing against what we really believe, on what basis do you propose to tell CAlvinists that they really do not know what they believe??? That is inconceivable that Dave Hunt or you or anyone else is in a better position to tell me what I believe that I am.

No it wasn't.

They were not true conclusions. That has been shown many times.

Then he should have told the truth. MC Hammer also dedicated a few of his albums to Jesus Christ and then proceeded to be vulgar and obscene. The fact that someone desires somethign to be to God's glory means nothing. It is the content that is at issue.

And if anyone would be able to find errors and fallacies in a book about Calvinism, it would be Calvinists. That only makes sense.

I have yet to read anyone who can make this claim from the book itself. Every attempt involves deception and misrepresentation.

How would you like it is someone published a book saying that you and others who share your belief believe that they are getting to heaven because they are smarter and better than everyone else??? Would you react against that book?? Would you call it a sham??? Would you tell people that it misrepresents your position???

Of course you would. I guarantee you without doubt that I can make that case about your position. I can show that the logical end of your position is that you believe you are saved because of what you did, because you are smarter than everyone else who dies without believing in Christ. But I would not publish that because I know that is not what you believe. It would unethical for me to do that ... just as it is unethical and dishonest for Dave Hunt to publish a book that misrepresents Calvinism just as I misrepresented Arminianism.

 

Has anyone read Vance's "The Other Side of Calvinism"?

 

Well, I tried a few years ago. Does that count?

Larry Vance is to soteriology what Gail Riplinger is to bibliology. The similarities to Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions abound: both are overlong, pretentious practically to the point of being unreadable, published by a "vanity" imprint, endorsed by Ruckmandroids, and contain little more than ad hominem screeds by an ignoramus feigning scholarship.

[ December 22, 2003, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Pastor Larry,

I would do as the honorable and respectable Dave Hunt has done with the outlandish claims made against him and his book. I would address the issues once, pointing out how the claims against me are not true and then I would let the public decide. I have no fear in letting the truth speak for itself. I would then take my focus back to preaching the truth. I listen to Dave Hunt every week. Though he addresses Calvinism often, he does not address individuals and try to discredit them. For instance, he has never called James White a liar nor treated him with the disdain that James treats Dave even though he would have every right to do so. James White seems to be obsessed with Dave Hunt. He addresses him personally often on his broadcast and has an entire page dedicated to him, that itself lies and deceives people about what Dave believes.

From White's website http://www.straitgate.com/davehunt/index.htm

Dave Hunt has NEVER denied the freedom of God and the sufficiency of God's grace! That is an outlandish lie. But, Calvinists will claim that to deny Calvinism one would in turn deny the freedom of God, and we say to believe in Calvinism one must draw certain conclusions that Calvinists deny to have drawn. It's a vicious cycle that should a lead person to be sensitive so that we follow the Lord's command and speak the truth in love. That is why we should address the issue, not the person. As has already been proven, that has not been done in this thread.

To lie means, "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive." Dave Hunt wrote what he did because he believes it to be true. To act as if he maliciously tries to deceive, is itself a deception.

The fact of the matter is that Calvinists will continue to claim that we do not understand and misrepresent them, and we will continue to reveal how their beliefs do misrepresent God. We should be able to discuss the matter in a civilized manner.

We will not agree, that is obvious, the question is, how will that disagreement be dealt with?

~Lorelei

 

But by your definition in this very post, if White believes this to be true, then it is not deception and it is you who is doing the deceiving. (Remember, that is what you said, not me.) You see, these types of arguments cut both ways.

Is it?? Many people have made this case against Hunt and against arminianism in general. It is simple: When you deny God's freedom to save whoever he wants, without reference to man's input whatsoever, then you deny his freedom. When you require that man take the causative step, then you have denied God's freedom to save whoever he wants. You have said he can only save those who first want him. You assert that his grace is not sufficient apart from man's belief which comes from his inherent ability. (I am not saying I believe that necessarily; I am demonstrating how easy the argument is to make.)

But again, remember your own argument in this very post. If White really believes that Hunt believes this, then he is not lying; it is you who is lying about it. (Keep in mind I am not calling you a liar. I am showing that your own argument is not a valid argument.)

I agree. I don't read James White. THe only book I have of his is his book on teh KJV (which is very good and very kind to those who he disagrees with).

And as I have pointed out, this very argument, if it works, works in favor of James White whom you said told an "outlandish lie."

What we have to realize is that "motivation" or "sincerity" is not the determiner of truth or lying. Sincerely held beliefs that one can get to heaven apart from Christ will not make it true. Sincerely held beliefs about what someone else believes will not make it true. The test of truth is conformity to reality. When someone says something that does not reflect reality, he is lying. He may be variously held culpable for that lie, depending on a number of factors. But he is lying.

Notice how subtly you put this. Calvinist "claim" something; you "reveal" something. That is biased. The reality is that your claims, no matter what you think of them or how impressive they are to you, are based in the wrong thing. They are not based in reality. We can reveal to you what we believe (a matter on which we have authority to speak and on which you do not); we can claim that your arguments are false (and knowing what we believe, we would be in the best position to make that claim).

We should ... but so long as there is misrepresentation of beliefs and so long as there are prejudicial statements such as you just made, it increases the difficulty of it.

It won't be ... Because you will not agree that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. As I have said many times, you don't have to agree with us, but at least try to refute what we actually believe. You might think we have inconsistencies. You yourself have inconsistencies in your position. You have chosen to live with your inconsistencies; I have chosen to live with mine. But if you are going to talk about what I believe, then talk about what I believe, not what you wish I believed.

In the end, I don't really care about this book. As I previously said, in my ministry context, it has zero impact. No one knows about it and no one is reading it. If you are impressed by it, then so be it. It doesn't matter to me. As I previously said, just read it critically. Understand that Hunt is determined to "prove" something and his proofs must be carefully checked out and critically interacted with.

 

Well, given that there are different variants of Calvinism, including the "hypers" and others who affirm some of the things you claim are misrepresentations, then as I said, you cannot speak for what all "Calvinists" believe, or say that it as a whole is being "misrepresented". (Unless you want to say that the hypers and those others are not Calvinists. Now, you would be doing worse maligning of someone's beliefs, then what you are claiming is done to you.)

People do it all the time.
Then,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000, Dave began to take aim at the theology of the Protestant Reformation. In short, he denied the freedom of God and the sufficiency of the grace of God in salvation. And he was becoming more vocal about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still, the point is, even if he is "sincere" in believing this, how could anyone who makes that claim then become so sensitive and defensive and get so upset when a similar thing is done to him? How could he, whatsloveisthis.com, and the rest them accuse him of "lying". This is not our belief (as your side is saying). How can you tell us what we believe? (We believe that God in His sovereignty has set it up like this, rather than him being "denied" something by us). What that is doing, is taking the other person's beliefs, reading your own interpretation of what they must lead to into them, and then proclaiming this as what they believe. This is exactly what he is blasting Hunt for, only he adds the word "lie" to it, and many on his side then go on to question Hunt's sincerity or even salvation. I think both are wrong for letting the debate devolve into such hyperbole, but you have to ask why the Calvinists are reacting so much more heatedly when they are playing the same game, often worse. Either "This is the infallible truth, so how dare you answer back. Just admit we are right, "learn" instead of arguing, and allow us to sweep your bankrupt, discredited view out of the way, or you are a liar and unchristian...!"
Or it reveals a problem; perhaps a weakness on their side.

 

Of course there are variations of Calvinism, just as there are variations in noncalvinism. But there are core beliefs that are shared by all Calvinists.

One of those core beliefs that absolutely every Calvinist would share is that people choose God because God chooses them. Both choices are essential, but it is God's choice that is the underlying cause of any pro God choice a human being makes. We choose God because He chooses us.

Anyone who wants to argue against Calvinism needs to start there. Take this truth and destroy it and you have destroyed Calvinism, because you will have ripped its heart out.

Arguing against a variant view of a minority is not going to do much good against Calvinism in general, because your argument will miss the majority of Calvinists and won't hit the core tenets at all. No heart shots, maybe a couple of tiny hits around the edges, but that's all.

It'd be like me writing an argument against Arminianism and spending a while proving that God does indeed have exhaustive knowledge of the future because a few (so-called) Arminians think he doesn't. It'd be a waste of time, because the vast majority of Arminians do believe in God's exhaustive foreknowledge, and, at the very most, I would hit the very outside edges of my target.

Furthermore, any Arminian could argue with justification that arguing against the HERESY of open theism isn't arguing against ORTHODOX arminianism at all, and they would be right! That the open theists came out of the Arminian fold and that they share some some common beliefs with Arminians doesn't mean that they haven't strayed so far as to have left the fold.

Hypercalvinism is to calvinism what open theology is to arminianism. It's doing away with the logical tension in the system. It's taking the system to where it appears to logically lead. ( Its a really good way to come up with heresy.) Hypers are not calvinists any more than the open guys are arminian. And to say that's not maligning the hypers, either, anymore than it's maligning an open theist to say he's not an arminian.

(There are accepted definitions of hypercalvinism--look in a dictionary of theological terms. It can be identified. It's not mysterious.)

So, if I was going to write something to argue against arminianism in general, I'd concentrate on the core theology--that God chooses people because they choose Him. Taking aim around the edges--or outside of the edges, would be an exercise in futility.

So would calling to question the moral fibre of famous Arminians. It would be irrelevant. Likewise with pointing our similarities between Arminianism and the Catholic church. It would also be irrelevant. Arguing against sinless perfectionism because that movement grew out of arminianism would be silly, too, because the vast majority of arminians just plain don't buy that teaching.

 

But hypercalvinists affirm that; they only take it to some of its logical conclusions. That is what people like Hunt are trying to say. In light of the fact that hypercalvinism affirms that core, the statement

is not quite true. If the heart, or very definition of Calvinism is that God chooses unconditionally, and the hypers affirm this, then they are apart of "calvinism". (In fact, they will claim that your "tensions" destroy that core belief, and that you are not the true Calvinists). You can try to turn this around and say "If the heart or very definition of Arminianism is free choice, and the open theists affirm this, then they are apart of 'Arminianism'", but we are not being accused simply of open theism. (actually, you usually more fairly say that our view might lead to that, rather than calling us that!) What we are being accused of is "Rome's gospel", "denying God's freedom" (even open theism does not necessarily do this, if it is specified that God chooses not to see the future), "denying the sufficiency of grace", and in other places, believing in a "weak god", ineffective Christ, "works salvation", etc. Once again, what Arminians are often accused of dwarfs anything they have said about Calvinism. But we are not responding like White and his followers.

 

I would disagree that this is the logical conclusion. Many have tried to argue that KJVOnlyism is the logical conclusion of the biblical doctrine of inspiration. All orthodox people reject that view and with good reasons. Man's construction of "logical conclusions" is faulty, as is this one.

What Hunt points out is not a true conclusion. Those who know Calvinism know that.

Only in the sense that open theology is a part of arminianism. And they will not deny us to be Calvinists because we disagree on this point. You are taking horses and ponies and trying to compare them like they are horses and cows. Hunt's book addresses "cows." We ride "horses." Therefore he is addressing an imaginary enemy.

[qutoe](actually, you usually more fairly say that our view might lead to that, rather than calling us that!)[/quote]Which is indeed what you should be saying, and what Hunt should be saying. Unfortunately neither one of you is doing to us what you would like to be done to yourself.

And indeed these are all issues that have been historically shown to be valid connections. These are not reaching after extremes and misrepresentations such as Hunt does.

 

No, hypercalvinists don't affirm that. They minimize the real human choice. That's why they minimize the role of the gospel in salvation. That's why they don't see faith as a condition of salvation. That's why they get upset when Calvinists talk about the "well-meaning" offer of the gospel.

And they would be wrong. Historically, Calvinism has always had logical tension. Calvinism has confessions defining it, you know, and the hypers could not affirm those confessions, because everywhere in the confessions the necessity of the offer of the gospel is affirmed, and the responsibility that mankind has to believe is affirmed. The core statement I gave you has logical tension: We choose because God chooses us, but we really choose. The "but we really choose" is just as important to historic Calvinism as "We choose because God chooses us." You cannot take out those confessional tensions and then claim to be a Calvinist.

I wouldn't do that, because I recognize that a line has been crossed in open theism. It would be dirty pool to take the arminian's belief in free choice and insist it equals open theism, wouldn't it?

Not only would it be unfair to do that, it wouldn't be very effective, either. Open theism is not part of historic arminianism. Arguments tossed at open theism are not hitting historic arminanism, just as arguments tossed at hypercalvinism don't touch historic calvinism. And when Dave Hunt does this (tossing his arguments at hypercalvinistic beliefs), his arguments miss his intended target. They might hit someone out there, but they wouldn't hit me, and they wouldn't hit any Calvinist I know, or even any Calvinist I've read.

(But let's look at the example of the core belief of Arminianism for a second, because I think it might be useful to this "logical tension" idea. If the core belief of arminianism is the free choice of men, then let's state it something like this to make it sort of parallel to the Calvinist statement: It is our choice of God (foreseen by Him) that causes Him to choose us. That is a statement with logical tension--logical tension that the open theist does away with because they don't think that if God foresees our choice (or if God choose us before we actually make that choice) our choice can be a real one. So the open theist would get rid of the "God chooses us" part of the statement, in a parallel but opposite way to the hypercalvinist who gets rid of the "we choose God" part of the calvinist statement. Hypercalvinism and open theism really have a lot in common--they are both heresies that result from pushing the tension out of orthodox systems. Logical tension is not a bad thing!)

I wouldn't say either of those things. I was just using an example of what I hypothetically MIGHT do to illustrate what I think Dave Hunt has done in his treatment of Calvinism. It is not fair (not to mention silly) to argue against what a view MIGHT lead to. All beliefs have things they might lead to--it doesn't mean they have to, or even actually do.

I don't like it when I see the loaded language on either side of the debate, which is partly why I didn't like Hunt's book.

I also get really irritated when people who previously knew less than zero about Calvinism read his book and then tell me I'm not a REAL calvinist.

 

So, the hyperbole from your side is valid, while the hyperbole from our side is "extremes" (as well as some damnable lie that supposedly destroys one's credibility). Historically, the connections have been made between Calvinism and much of what Hunt and others accuse it of, both from Calvin's writings (though he may have ignored another side of them) and others, plus the almost universal use of Romans 9 and other passages to teach God doesn't love all (which the common reading of them definitely suggests), or that some are only born to be destroyed (which White seems to affirm in the Potter's Freedom). Still, what Calvinists re being accused of is nowhere near as bad as what they accuse Arminians of. Hunt may overgeneralize, but a lot of what he says is really not that for off base, and while you may deny things, it is not just "hypers" who do affirm some of them, but others considered orthodox.

To both Larry and Russel:
Remember, Hunt's book was defensive, reacting to Calvinism, which has often made sweeping statements about non-Calvinism (such as above); and they don't then disclaim these distinctions between these other forms of Calvinism, —which all agree on "sovereignty" (however they express it) and therefore are treated as being on the same side (the side of "truth") in the ultimate issue of "sovereignty versus human autonomy"; so they should not then get mad and cry "misrepresentation" when the other side responds and lumps their positions all together in one rebuttal.
If you all agree on "total depravity" and "unconditional election" in which God passed over a certain class of people, whether God actively reprobated them or passively preteritioned them, and that this is one of the distinctives of "sovereignty", then that is what Hunt and the rest of us are refuting, and I think Hunt was basically on the mark in that objective, even if everything he said was not completely right.

 

This is exactly the problem. It simply isn't true. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it is true. I have even posted page #'s where you can find the quotes he gives, word perfect. The man lets Calvinists condemn themselves in their own very words. Why do you so want to backpeddle?

As a bible believer, I don't think that you understand and properly reflect a Biblical position. I certainly know that you do not understand the difference between personally attacking and being personally attacked. Is this all condemning evidence against you? We disagree on conclusions, so you must needs be wrong?

Yes, that is why he has so thoroughly documented his quotes and their sources. Really galls you guys that he has the goods on ya, don't it? Like I said before, his book is worth it if, for nothing else, the documentation and references.

 

Yes, it is true. I have even posted page #'s where you can find the quotes he gives, word perfect. The man lets Calvinists condemn themselves in their own very words. Why do you so want to backpeddle?

Whether Hunt can accurately copy words from someone else's book is not the point. He can.

The point is, in so doing, does the meaning he attributes to those words correspond with the intention of the author from whom he has copied them?

Clearly, in the much-discussed cases (e.g. Spurgeon), the answer is no.

 

You mean when I read a book, it is not the author's specific words, but the intent behind writing them that I have to know? Ahhhh, I see. So, if the author cannot back up his "intent" with any facts, it is enough to know that the author is a good Calvinist, and that if it is Calvinism, it is right, etc.

And there are "much-discussed case(S)" regarding Spurgeon? So far, all I have seen is White's often parroted single attempt at skewing Hunt's Chapter One quote of Spurgeon as a hostile witness of Calvinism's disagreement among themselves into some sort of repudiation of his own Calvinism. That is only ONE case that is provoked discussion that I am aware of. You think he has misinterpreted others?