# Two Anti-Reformed Books



## buggy (Aug 18, 2010)

Some 4-pt Arminian anti-Calvinist fella that I know is pushing two books. He claims that the Reformed teaching of "Lordship Salvation" = works-salvation. 

- What Love is This 
- The Other Side of Calvinism

Is there a good reformed critique and view of these books? Thank you.


----------



## Zenas (Aug 18, 2010)

Interesting that someone who espouses that Salvation is a result of man's choice is alleging that the soteriology that says it is not from man's choice is works-based. Seems like a bit of deflection to me, such as when one who has committed theivery claims that their accuser is in fact the theif.


----------



## Grillsy (Aug 18, 2010)

Are the authors Dave Hunt and Lawrence Vance?

Visit James White's blog for a rebuttal of Hunt's teachings Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White


----------



## jason d (Aug 18, 2010)

If it is "What Love is This" by Dave Hunt then it's not even worth reading... Dave Hunt sets up tons of strawmans, caricatures, etc... and has bunk history riddled through his books. James White also deals with him and his book:

Blinded By Tradition:
An Open Letter to Dave Hunt
Regarding His Newly Published Attack Upon the Reformation, "What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God"


----------



## Barnpreacher (Aug 18, 2010)

buggy said:


> Is there a good reformed critique and view of these books? Thank you.


 
Here's a pretty good reformed critique of Dave Hunt and Laurence Vance - Ignore most of what they say.


----------



## captivewill (Aug 18, 2010)

buggy said:


> Some 4-pt Arminian anti-Calvinist fella that I know is pushing two books. He claims that the Reformed teaching of "Lordship Salvation" = works-salvation.
> 
> - What Love is This
> - The Other Side of Calvinism
> ...



I believe this book would adequately refute those you mentioned.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 18, 2010)

jason d said:


> If it is "What Love is This" by Dave Hunt then it's not even worth reading... Dave Hunt sets up tons of strawmans, caricatures, etc... and has bunk history riddled through his books. James White also deals with him and his book:
> 
> Blinded By Tradition:
> An Open Letter to Dave Hunt
> Regarding His Newly Published Attack Upon the Reformation, "What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God"


 
Being as charitable as I can toward the author, I'd have to agree.

The author is from a Plymouth Brethren background, and quotes Arminius favorably, not really knowing who he was, and yet the author comes to an opposite conclusion than did Arminius about perseverance of the saints ("eternal security"). That in itself is a major inconsistency.

The author is like many who know the Arminian system, but do not know that it is a semi-Pelagian doctrinal system. They know a few standardized objections to "Calvinism."

But they do not know "Calvinism," the doctrines of grace, even in a basic way. They do not know that each point is necessarily dependent and related to every other point, not the construct, nor the substance of each point.

The arguments used in the book are almost embarrassing because they betray a complete lack of understanding of the doctrines of grace (Calvinism).

In addition, the author uses serial listings of Scripture that sometimes do not even support his position on a surface level, let alone in their context. Some are not even relevant to his topic, yet they are listed et. seriatim after his assertions.

On one level, this book is a quick, easy exercise in demolishing vapid argumentation. Just take time to go through one string of His Scripture quotes after a point, and likely you will able to see the inconsistency and explain this to someone really seeking to understanding biblical truth.

On a similar topic, the author, in critiquing Mr. Piper's book, _Christian Hedonism_, said he finds no evidence in Scripture that we are to enjoy or delight in God, at all. His technique was to quote Psalms authoritatively, ones that talk about delighting in God, and then use them to footnote His point that God's Creatures are not to seek to "enjoy Him forever."

I really would expect something more credible for one who promotes Arminian-influence, dispensationalism, and the notion that we are not to seek to enjoy our relationship with our Creator, our God.


----------



## cjgardner (Aug 18, 2010)

Dave Hunt is an amazing Bible scholar. I have subscribed to his Berean Call newsletter for years. His knowledge of history and heresy are phenomenal. That's why it breaks my heart that he takes issue with reformed theology for it is 100% Biblical. How Dave can be so right on in exposing heresy and so very wrong in espousing arminianism is a mystery to me. It amazes me that anyone who calls himself a Christian can have a problem with the sovereignty of God. It is no problem with me at all to accept that God has TOTAL control over my life. I praise Him every day that He does, because if my salvation were up to me, I'd have been a resident of hell long ago.

Dave has 2 hangups with reformed theology: He is stuck on the term "calvinism" trying to make it seem that reformed people are cultists following the teachings of a human being. I rarely use the term myself. When I do, it's only to distinguish between a Biblical point of view and an arminian point of view. The second hangup Dave has is to equate the love of God with the love of fallen humans. When he asks "What Love is This?" he is inferring that no loving God would save some and let others go to hell. I have heard this puny question so many times from people who do not have a clue about God: "How could a loving God do such and such?" Problem is, we, as humans have no CLUE what real LOVE is. We can only try to understand it through a glass darkly. Our puny ideas of love can in no way compare to the love of God. The audacity of creatures to compare themselves to the perfection of God is insulting to Him. God sees eternity--we don't. Something that may appear to us to be "unloving" on the part of God is part of His loving plan for His own through eternity. As well versed in the Bible that Dave is, I can't believe he can't see that.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 18, 2010)

CJGardner, please fix your signature per PB rules (see link in my signature below).


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Aug 18, 2010)

Is the other book you mentioned called "The Darker side of Calvinism?" and not "The other side of Calvinism",if that is so then the author is George Bryson and I would recommend James's White's debate with Bryson called "Few are Chosen" it is a DVD and is available through Alpha and Omega I will look for the link.In the debate Dr White handles all the groundless claims Bryson makes from the book and much more,he is as others have recommended the "go to guy" for these matters


http://store.reformed.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=632


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 19, 2010)

It's quite understandable the author you mention and his newsletter might seem impressive.

A few years ago I might have thought the same thing.

The intent to combat wrong teaching is commendable (the intent).

But after studying reformed theology and then reading his materials carefully, I can only conclude what Jason has- that in light of Scripture, he just doesn't understand the doctrines of grace he professes to debate. It's not worth the time to read, at least not in the sense of drawing a serious debate of "the five points."

Here is a credible presentation of the arguments against the five points _Why I am Not a Calvinist_, which was written as a companion to the book _Why I am not an Arminian_, both published by Intervarsity Press.
http://www.christianbook.com/why-i-am-not-a-calvinist/jerry-walls/9780830832491/pd/32495

And that, before even getting to the substance of the Arminian influenced theology (and dispensationalism) he professes. 

Consider the following:



cjgardner said:


> Dave Hunt is an amazing Bible scholar. I have subscribed to his Berean Call newsletter for years. His knowledge of history and heresy are phenomenal.
> 
> Is he aware that the "Arminianism" of the Arminius he relies on in his book was ruled heresy in its day (by the Protestant Churches)?
> Background here:
> ...


----------



## buggy (Aug 19, 2010)

Jesus is my friend said:


> Is the other book you mentioned called "The Darker side of Calvinism?" and not "The other side of Calvinism",if that is so then the author is George Bryson and I would recommend James's White's debate with Bryson called "Few are Chosen" it is a DVD and is available through Alpha and Omega I will look for the link.In the debate Dr White handles all the groundless claims Bryson makes from the book and much more,he is as others have recommended the "go to guy" for these matters
> 
> 
> Few Are Chosen: Debating Freewill & Predestination (DVD) - $14.95 : The Reformed.org Store


 
I am talking about Vance's book. Hmm. Seems like many people are familar with Hunt. What about "the other side of Calvinism"?


----------



## Heidelberg1 (Aug 19, 2010)

buggy said:


> Some 4-pt Arminian anti-Calvinist fella that I know is pushing two books. He claims that the Reformed teaching of "Lordship Salvation" = works-salvation.
> 
> - What Love is This
> - The Other Side of Calvinism
> ...


 
Phil Johnson, and elder at the church where John MacArthur is senior pastor, has a good critique of Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This." I think this is the link to the Mp3 of his talk. Calvinism on Trial


----------



## Barnpreacher (Aug 19, 2010)

buggy said:


> I am talking about Vance's book. Hmm. Seems like many people are familar with Hunt. What about "the other side of Calvinism"?


 
While I have never read "The Other Side of Calvinism", I do know that when I was an Independent, Fundamental Baptist it was considered the book that would put the death nail in Calvin's coffin. The book was, of course, highly pushed by the Peter Ruckman KJV-only crowd, because Vance teaches Greek at Ruckman's Pensacola Bible Institute. If for nothing else, I would be wary of Vance for that reason alone. I believe I can say that because I was a Ruckman guy for so long. "Ruckmanites", though zealous for evangelism and not completely void of godly traits, are trained with some very strange methods. I'm also trying to be charitable, but I don't know of any Bible scholar who thinks he is so right on Scripture, yet so guilty of eisegesis. And that, unfortunately, is the way Ruckman trains his men. They push a very strange form of ultra-dispensationalism, and they also despise Calvinism. Then, when someone proves them wrong from Scripture, they just call that individual a "conceited ass" or something of that nature. They call individuals liberal, Bible haters if they disagree with their stance on the King James Bible. It is a very crude, ungracious group of men for the most part. Not one that you would want to spend much time with, which Vance obviously does. So without reading the book, I can only go by who was high on its value and probably accurately say it is full of private interpretation of Scripture.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 20, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> It's quite understandable the author you mention and his newsletter might seem impressive.
> 
> A few years ago I might have thought the same thing.
> 
> ...




I know the same thing (loving God argument) was my hang up, I just did not see how it could possibly be true that God would only elect some and not others. I thank HIM everyday for allowing me to see the truth in His word..


----------



## torstar (Aug 20, 2010)

cjgardner said:


> Dave Hunt is an amazing Bible scholar. I have subscribed to his Berean Call newsletter for years. His knowledge of history and heresy are phenomenal. That's why it breaks my heart that he takes issue with reformed theology for it is 100% Biblical. How Dave can be so right on in exposing heresy and so very wrong in espousing arminianism is a mystery to me. It amazes me that anyone who calls himself a Christian can have a problem with the sovereignty of God. It is no problem with me at all to accept that God has TOTAL control over my life. I praise Him every day that He does, because if my salvation were up to me, I'd have been a resident of hell long ago.
> 
> Dave has 2 hangups with reformed theology: He is stuck on the term "calvinism" trying to make it seem that reformed people are cultists following the teachings of a human being. I rarely use the term myself. When I do, it's only to distinguish between a Biblical point of view and an arminian point of view. The second hangup Dave has is to equate the love of God with the love of fallen humans. When he asks "What Love is This?" he is inferring that no loving God would save some and let others go to hell. I have heard this puny question so many times from people who do not have a clue about God: "How could a loving God do such and such?" Problem is, we, as humans have no CLUE what real LOVE is. We can only try to understand it through a glass darkly. Our puny ideas of love can in no way compare to the love of God. The audacity of creatures to compare themselves to the perfection of God is insulting to Him. God sees eternity--we don't. Something that may appear to us to be "unloving" on the part of God is part of His loving plan for His own through eternity. As well versed in the Bible that Dave is, I can't believe he can't see that.


 

Dave has found an oil well that gushes $$$$ and gets him time on TV and radio (yay!!!) when he talks all tough about Calvinism.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Aug 20, 2010)

I have never seen any of the authors that attack Calvinism or Reformed theology deal with Scripture in a substantive way at all. They love their proof texts, and they love their neat, concise, summary treatments of passages that fully set forth and explain the absolute sovereignty of God over all things in general, and over salvation in particular. So I would recommend above all else to know the Scriptures; be able in a clear, consistent, systematic way to explain the total depravity of man, the sovereignty of the Father in election, of the Son in redemption, of the Spirit in calling, of God the Holy Trinity in decreeing all things from eternity, and executing His eternal purposes in providence, etc. Know the texts, and be able to demonstrate that we are not engaging in "special pleading" when dealing with "their" proof texts, but that they are engaging in such when dealing with "our" proof texts.

We have the Bible on our side. Vance, Hunt, Bryson, Conner, et al. have written "hefty tomes" with a lot of fluff. They are long on proof texts separated from any semblance of context, and ultra-short on exegesis. If you know the passages inside and out, you can cut through their nonsense. I wouldn't even recommend reading their books, unless you really want to waste what precious hours you have.


----------



## KensingtonerRebbe (Aug 21, 2010)

I have read both of these books and have found them wanting, big time.


----------



## Bern (Aug 23, 2010)

I find that most peoples objections to the DOG are based on charicatures of calvinists, or some faulty idea that they have. Probably the most frequent objection I hear is because many Arminians think that Calvinists simply believe "oince saved always saved" or eternal security. Without the rest of the DOG perseverance becomes a silly doctrine. They think that believing it will cause you to live carefree and free to sin if you can't lose your salvation. So its usually that they misunderstand the DOG. If you get someone who truly understands them but still has a problem with them... thats a different ballgame.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 23, 2010)

Bern said:


> I find that most peoples objections to the DOG are based on charicatures of calvinists, or some faulty idea that they have.
> 
> In the case of the book, _What Love is This?_ it's primarily:
> 
> ...


----------

