Two Anti-Reformed Books

Status
Not open for further replies.
buggy

buggy

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 
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.
 
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

A Great book declaring Lordship Salvation is one titled "LORDSHIP SALVATION The Only Kind There Is !"
by Curtis I. Crenshaw.
He is basically refuting the erroneous teaching of Jody Dillow("Reign of the Servant Kings") but would be very relevant in refuting these teachings as well.
This book is difficult to find but I have one copy. .

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

I believe this book would adequately refute those you mentioned.
 
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"
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
http://spindleworks.com/library/vandergugten/arminian_c.htm

It's not sufficient, in a credible apologetics fashion that Mr. Hunt contends to ignore that his main source's theology was, as to the "five points" ruled heresy, and so held broadly by Protestant churches for centuries.

Nor is it sufficient to not differentiate the fact he exempts Arminius' doctrinal system at the point of "eternal security," without at least explaining his reasoning- which he does not do in his book. One would think only Mr. Hunt agrees with Arminius' doctrine on salvation, but even that is not true, because Mr. Hunt believes "once saved, always saved," and that to his credit, but he does not come to it systematically.

That's why it breaks my heart that he takes issue with reformed theology for it is 100% Biblical.
Yes, reformed theology is derived from the whole of Scripture. It is, at minimum:

Doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + Confession

As opposed to the systematic theology Mr. Hunt promotes:

Arminian influence + dispensationalism + No Confession

The Plymouth Brethren, while having some admirable characteristics, is Mr. Hunt's background. That communion was quite wrong in these major areas and instrumental in promoting dispensationalism that led many to believe that God did redemption apart from salvation apart from by grace through faith in Christ. Most dispensationalism no longer officially holds that, but they introduced that major error.

How Dave can be so right on in exposing heresy and so very wrong in espousing arminianism is a mystery to me.
Sin (e.g. pride) produces blindness in us all, that's why we are commanded by a holy God to avail ourselves of the "ordinary means of grace" frequently (e.g. the Word of God), to renew our minds toward the new nature.


It amazes me that anyone who calls himself a Christian can have a problem with the sovereignty of God.
Exactly.

God's sovereignty is not limited by man in any way. If it could be, God would not be sovereign. And if God were not sovereign, God would not be 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.

Absolutely.

But before the foundation of the world, in eternity past, God chooses, out of the good pleasure of His will, to give some, who do not deserve it, mercy... for Christ's sake.

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.

Yes, when presented with Scripture interpreting Scripture to show that man is fallen and does not seek God unless God first intervenes, Mr. Hunt ignores all what the Scripture says and appeals to a general argument that it would not be "loving" if God didn't let everyone choose.

What he doesn't understand is that fallen man does not have moral ability to savingly believe. God has to intervene with a miracle first, and change the constituent nature of a human being first to make that happen. Our Lord explains this clearly in John 3, all part of the context of "God so loving the world that...."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...

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

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

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
 
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"?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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.
Why I Am Not a Calvinist: Jerry L. Walls, Joseph R. Dongell: 9780830832491: Christianbook.com

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:
The Arminian Controversy and the Synod of Dort

It's not sufficient, in a credible apologetics fashion that Mr. Hunt contends to ignore that his main source's theology was, as to the "five points" ruled heresy, and so held broadly by Protestant churches for centuries.

Nor is it sufficient to not differentiate the fact he exempts Arminius' doctrinal system at the point of "eternal security," without at least explaining his reasoning- which he does not do in his book. One would think only Mr. Hunt agrees with Arminius' doctrine on salvation, but even that is not true, because Mr. Hunt believes "once saved, always saved," and that to his credit, but he does not come to it systematically.

That's why it breaks my heart that he takes issue with reformed theology for it is 100% Biblical.
Yes, reformed theology is derived from the whole of Scripture. It is, at minimum:

Doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + Confession

As opposed to the systematic theology Mr. Hunt promotes:

Arminian influence + dispensationalism + No Confession

The Plymouth Brethren, while having some admirable characteristics, is Mr. Hunt's background. That communion was quite wrong in these major areas and instrumental in promoting dispensationalism that led many to believe that God did redemption apart from salvation apart from by grace through faith in Christ. Most dispensationalism no longer officially holds that, but they introduced that major error.

How Dave can be so right on in exposing heresy and so very wrong in espousing arminianism is a mystery to me.
Sin (e.g. pride) produces blindness in us all, that's why we are commanded by a holy God to avail ourselves of the "ordinary means of grace" frequently (e.g. the Word of God), to renew our minds toward the new nature.


It amazes me that anyone who calls himself a Christian can have a problem with the sovereignty of God.
Exactly.

God's sovereignty is not limited by man in any way. If it could be, God would not be sovereign. And if God were not sovereign, God would not be 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.

Absolutely.

But before the foundation of the world, in eternity past, God chooses, out of the good pleasure of His will, to give some, who do not deserve it, mercy... for Christ's sake.

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.

Yes, when presented with Scripture interpreting Scripture to show that man is fallen and does not seek God unless God first intervenes, Mr. Hunt ignores all what the Scripture says and appeals to a general argument that it would not be "loving" if God didn't let everyone choose.

What he doesn't understand is that fallen man does not have moral ability to savingly believe. God has to intervene with a miracle first, and change the constituent nature of a human being first to make that happen. Our Lord explains this clearly in John 3, all part of the context of "God so loving the world that...."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


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..
 
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.
Click to expand...


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

1) taking verses without their context, or
2) taking a few verses that are unclear in their context,

and then relying back on a general notion that it wouldn't be "loving" if God didn't give a chance to man to choose whether man receives forgiveness, eternal life and blessing.

The assumption being that man's sin is not really "that" great, nor God's standard "that" holy. The problem is, of course Scripture makes very clear how serious sin is, how our nature is controlled by it, and how holy God is.

Probably the most frequent objection I hear is because many Arminians think that Calvinists simply believe "oince saved always saved" or eternal security.
What's interesting, and inconsistent, is Mr. Hunt argues for "eternal security," in the book without really crediting "Calvinism" for that, and without distinguishing himself from the Arminius he favorably quotes.

Without the rest of the DOG perseverance becomes a silly doctrine.
All "five points" of doctrine are necessarily and logically dependent on and related to one another. Unfortunately, Mr. Hunt doesn't even get close to touching on that in his book.

That's why it's really not a helpful writing for either bolstering Arminianism (on which he is inconsistent), nor critiquing "Calvinism."

In line with the original post, the book is really not a serious critique of what it proports, a book like, "Why I'm not a Calvinist" Amazon.com: Why I Am Not a Calvinist (9780830832491): Jerry L. Walls, Joseph… at least makes a credible attempt at it.

They think that believing it will cause you to live carefree and free to sin if you can't lose your salvation.
This is a valid concern.

But it betrays a misunderstanding of some basic biblical teaching though.

Believers will suffer the misery and consequences of sin in this sin, give account at the judgment seat for it, and possibly suffer loss there (not salvation). Believers who pattern their lives disorderly will be outside the blessing and protection of the visible church, will endure the chastisement of the Lord, and may continue to bear its consequences their entire time on earth.

Oh, may God's people come to understand this.


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.

A study of John 3 is helpful in putting some of this in context. Our Lord describes the impossibility (with men) of being born again, and compares the Spirit's work to the wind, something we cannot control, nor understand its patterns.

It also opens up understanding of "the world" (v. 16) of being the Gentile world, beyond Israel, as God was expanding the gospel message to people from every tribe, nation, kindred and tongue, in accordance with His plan from the very beginning.

Nicodemus did not understand this.

Neither does Arminian influence.
Click to expand...
:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Neogillist
  • Locked
Two Reformed Views of God's Sovereignty
Replies
24
Views
5K
py3ak
py3ak
DanSSwing
Avoiding Anti-Semitism
Replies
26
Views
1K
MrT
M
Ron Henzel
  • Locked
Grudem's Phoenix Seminary produces rabid anti-Calvinist?
2
Replies
31
Views
12K
RobR
RobR
Ed Walsh
  • Locked
Pastor asked me, "What are the Three Best Seminary Level Books on Reformed Theology."
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Dachaser
D
Mathias321
  • Locked
Anti-Trinitarianism in early Calvinists?
Replies
3
Views
2K
MW
M
Back
Top