CHAPTER THREE: UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION by James White

One necessary implication of TI is that God must therefore “elect” some people without “condition”, that is, without regard for anything in the person. He declares the standard Calvinist claim of “the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will” wherein God “predestinated these chosen ones to life”. But he offers no scripture to support this claim; it is simply asserted to be true. Calvinism interprets Eph. 1:5 to mean “predestined to be saved” in spite of the grammatical evidence that it is our conforming to the likeness of Jesus that is the object of “predestined”. Then he attributes the non-Calvinist objection to his interpretation as being based upon popularity and pride in man.

The section on Ephesians 1 is an elaborate effort to simply presume his interpretation to be what scripture plainly states. He does nothing to support the initial presumption upon which the entire argument rests, nor to deal with the grammatical basis for the non-Calvinist view. So he then offers anecdotal evidence from Paul’s ministry, specifically the incident where the Holy Spirit comes upon Gentile believers. But the context is about convincing Peter and all the Jews that God had now extended His grace beyond them to the whole world, not that God had forced His will upon greater numbers of people. This was a lesson for the Jews, not a doctrinal statement about Unconditional Election (UE). He wishes to take the “surface meaning” (more commonly called “the plain reading”) in this case, yet verses like John 3:16 are never read with this method. White does not attempt to explain why and when this method is to be applied.

No amount of study of the grammar helps White’s interpretation here; it is a diversionary tactic that hopes to capitalize on the earlier accusation about mishandling Greek grammar. But the problem for White is one of context. And White’s introduction of the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses defies not only his statements about the rules of debate but also the fact that Hunt has not said a thing about this passage. White is presuming his opponent’s interpretations.

White cites John 1:12-13 as one of “the other biblical witnesses to the truth of” UE, but he ignores the very first words: “As many as received Him”. This is actually a good verse for his opponent! He tries valiantly to reverse the “surface meaning” but does not succeed. Neither does Mt. 11:27 help his cause since it speaks of “all things”, not “all people”, and he forgets again that Jesus wills to reveal Himself to “all”. Rom. 9:16, 18 is in the context of nations, not individual salvation, White’s mocking denial notwithstanding. I am beginning to understand why he has not explained how this plain meaning method works.

White ends the section by repeating his assertion that to accept man’s free will must require the rejection of God’s sovereignty, not attempting to justify it though his entire theology rests upon it. He mocks the non-Calvinist view as “decisionalism” and declares the scriptures to be devoid of such a concept, in spite of many scriptures telling us to choose— which Calvinism dismisses with the claim, “God frequently commands man to do what is impossible for him to do”.

Response, by Dave Hunt

Hunt notes White’s own reliance upon tradition, but adds that this alleged “freedom” of God is really not very free if it is limited to saving only a few select people. He also points out that there is not one scripture explicitly declaring God’s love and grace to be limited, while there are many that declare the opposite. Then he turns to Eph. 1:13 which gives the order of salvation that White denies and mocks: “in whom you also trusted, after you heard… the gospel… after you believed you were sealed…”. And he points out a flaw in White’s hermeneutical method: if the ‘us’ in Eph. 1:3 means only “the elect”, then the ‘me’ in Gal. 2:20 means that Jesus only loved Paul.

Then Hunt examines Acts 13:48 and notes that the word there is “ordained”, not “predestinated”. Would Calvinists claim that everyone who is “ordained” as a “pastor” was predestinated from eternity past to be one? Most likely, but this only lends support to the oft-denied charge of fatalism, where God must direct every single thing every person will ever do. Next Hunt examines John 1:12-13 and asks how White can use it to claim that people receive Christ because they are born of God. So it is not Hunt who reverses the order of salvation, but White. In John 5:40 etc., note that if Calvinism were true it would read in the opposite order: “You will not have life, that you might come to me”.

In his discussion of nations versus individuals, Hunt gives several references with context which show White’s interpretation to be impossible. And is it surprising that White would admit that “before the first active assertion of God’s hardening… Pharaoh hardened his own heart”, since this serves as proof against his assertion of God’s sovereignty. Finally, as I’ve also noted, Hunt denies White’s assertion that faith is a work.

Defense, by James White

White begins with charging Hunt with ignoring his “exegesis” of Eph. 1. Hunt did not dismiss White’s claims, but White refuses to acknowledge this and then accuses Hunt of not debating at all! And as before, White had expected Hunt to turn the debate from what Calvinism teaches to what non-Calvinism teaches, so again he scolds Hunt for not doing so. Appealing to “Christian theologians down through the centuries” (but only the ones who support Calvinism) is an appeal to tradition, not scripture or exegesis. Neither does declaring his view “beyond refutation” make it such.

Then White complains about Hunt allegedly not doing more to present his own views, again forgetting the topic and scope of the debate. He offers 2 Thes. 2:13 as proof of election, yet still ignores the grammatical object of that which is chosen. It is not merely “salvation” but the whole phrase, “salvation through sanctification”. That is, God has chosen the method of salvation, not which individuals would have it. Per my own examination of the Greek it does not contain the phrase “from the beginning” but “firstfruits”, nor the word “chosen” but “prefers” (aorist, which can be present tense), rendering it “… because God favors you as the ‘firstfruit’ to come into salvation…”. One would have expected White to pay more attention to the Greek here, if it is truly scripture which he values above interpretation, even when it removes a proof-text from his arsenal.

In justifying his ignoring of Romans 9, White wishes to claim the right to only cite verses that support his interpretation. Yet since the debate is on Calvinism, Hunt has every right to demand an explanation of those verses which run contrary to the view. Yet White claims that the verses Hunt asked about are irrelevant to UE. Then he adds yet another complaint about what Hunt allegedly ignored, in a vain effort to change the scope of the debate. And White wishes to substitute his own Calvinist-punctuated rendering of Eph. 1:13 to change the order of salvation, but his rendering doesn’t make grammatical sense in either English or Greek.

Final Remarks, by Dave Hunt

Hunt begins with a refutation of White’s charges of failing to debate the issues. Then he reminds White of his own failure to explain how God can be “free” if He cannot save all, and how God can be sovereign if He cannot grant man free will. He also argues that “love” from someone who had no other choice is not love at all, such that only the free person can truly love God. Hunt agrees that White fails in his attempt to reverse the order of salvation in Eph. 1:13.

Final Remarks, by James White

White begins his final remarks by again asserting the freedom of God without answering Hunt’s question, while continuing to badger Hunt for not enlarging the scope of the debate. Once again White cites “tradition” against Hunt, seemingly forgetting his own warning about repetition completely. And to declare that the non-Calvinist wishes “to claim the glory for his salvation” reveals failure on White’s part to understand the scriptural divide between faith and works. This section is filled entirely with attacks on the person of his opponent and not any of his arguments.

CHAPTER TWO: MAN’S INABILITY by James White

In his effort to establish Total Inability (TI), White begins by asserting that the opposing view is only held on the basis of “tradition” since it is “so contrary to the inclinations of man”. He defines “synergism” as any theory that allows man the slightest part in determining the choice of whether to accept or reject salvation, as opposed to “monergism” which puts all the choosing in God’s hands. He boldly proclaims that the latter is what “the Bible proclaims”. Yet he mischaracterizes the free will choice of man as constituting man “aiding” God in salvation, as if God needs our help. But it is not a case of need at all; rather, a case of God’s sovereignly allowing man freedom of choice.

Citing the 1689 London Confession as “the Bible’s teaching”, White then quotes Rom. 3:10-18 as the scriptural backing for the Confession’s assertions of TI. Yet even the poetic passages quoted there by Paul speak of people “turning aside”, and the context is concerning Jews and Gentiles, against the assumption of the Jews that God would not hold them accountable for their sin simply because they were Jews. Chapter 1 of that same letter speaks of people who “suppress the truth”, that they “knew” things about God because He showed them these things, that their hearts “became darkened”, etc. All of this points to the fact that these people chose to turn away from God, and only then “God gave them over”. White admits that man is a “moral agent”, but asserts that such agents, in denial of the definition of the words¹, are all “rebels”; that is, without exception they all choose sin.

White asserts that all of this proves TI. But he resorts to lifting absurdities such as those listed in Jer. 13:23 out of its context of judgement against the nation of Israel and applying them to individuals of all nations and for all time. And without offering any scriptural support, White asserts that all the descendants of Adam “share his corrupted nature”. No one denies that we share mortal flesh, but the concept of mortal nature is completely absent from scripture. The cited passage of Rom. 8:5-8 repeats the word “flesh”, not “nature”, so it does not help White’s case at all. That he can even boldly proclaim that the lost “will never repent” is truly astounding.

Then White asserts that “the mind set on the flesh… does not subject itself to the law of God… but at the same time it is not able to do so!”, but that this “does not take away [the fleshly mind's] guilt”. This is nonsensical; inability necessarily precludes responsibility. Those who are unable to do anything but sin cannot be held responsible for sinning, any more than the blind person could be held responsible for not seeing. So we can say with confidence that since we are accountable, we are therefore able.

White asserts that Eph. 2:1-2 states we are “dead in sin”, but a study of the Greek grammar gives a rendering that is compatible with other passages of scripture: “You are all dead to your sins, in which you once lived…” (ref. Rom. 6:11, similar for Col. 2:13). Being “dead to” something means to have a broken relationship with it, while being “dead in” something is a phrase foreign to first century Greek. Regardless, White claims that there is such a thing as literal “spiritual death” even though it is a metaphor, or else he would be promoting annihilationism. Then he takes 1 Cor. 2:14 out of its context of carnal believers to mean unbelievers are utterly incapable of comprehending salvation.

White then quotes Jesus’ statement in John 6:43-44 about no one being able to come to Him unless the Father draws them, but he does not say who the Father draws. He also does not cite John 12:32 where Jesus says, “I will draw all men to myself”. No non-Calvinist denies that we would be ignorant of God without His revelation, but we disagree that He does not draw everyone. Jesus’ parable of the wedding banquet illustrates this fact, in that all were invited but only a few accepted the invitation. White denies this “general drawing” simply by saying it isn’t so.

In his zeal to deny man any free will to choose the gospel, White uses the teachings about slavery to sin to claim TI. But no one denies our need to be “set free”, which required Jesus to die, but only that we are unable to choose to place our faith in Jesus. He is confusing the need for Jesus to ransom the human race with individual choice about accepting His sacrifice on their behalf. And citing another instance of hardened hearts (the Pharisees) does not change the fact that nothing is said about how they got that way.

White concludes this section by repeating his claim that man having the freedom to choose or reject the gospel means “the fallen creature has the ability to control God’s free and sovereign work of salvation”. He claims that the Calvinistic view is derived from scripture while the non-Calvinist view is rooted in “the philosophies and traditions of man”— an amazing statement given the Calvinist love of philosophy and citing confessions.

¹ Moral agent, a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong. [Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)]

Response, by Dave Hunt

Hunt begins by pointing out that non-Calvinism does not deny the sufficiency of God, but that this does not preclude man’s responsibility. He observes as I have that White has been only giving scripture references that can be used to support TI while ignoring those that cannot. And he rightly notes that not a single scripture expressly states TI, so Calvinism must rely completely upon inference. But ability is not even the real issue, because scripture only speaks plainly about believing and accepting. And if, as White asserts, God causes and controls everything, then why does scripture contain so many references to God losing patience with people or having regrets?

In placing faith in God, man certainly does not “aid” Him in any way. But rather than presenting scripture to support these claims, White has only offered “confessions”. And Hunt cites Eph. 2:10 to support the belief that works do not precede salvation but follow it, as well as Rom. 4:5 which clearly states that “to the one who does not work but believes… his faith is considered to be righteousness”. The statement “does not work but believes” is an explicit refutation of the claim that faith is a kind of work. Hunt then quotes many scriptures that tell us to do exactly what Calvinism says we cannot: seek the Lord, cry out to Him, come to Him, believe in Him. If, as Calvinism asserts, we are unable to do these things, then God is openly mocking His creatures and giving them false hope.

Regarding White’s citation of Jer. 13:23, Hunt adds to the issue of context that even our own experiences with those who have been able to give up various sinful habits denies his interpretation. If these sins had been aspects of “nature” as White claimed, this would be impossible. Similar for the citation of Rom. 8:6-8. And he wonders why White does not explain how the lost can have the ability to deliberately choose to disbelieve but not to believe. Why would Jesus have told people to “strive to enter” (Luke 13:24) if they are unable to strive? And how exactly does freely accepting God’s love amount to “controlling” God? Does the receiver control the giver?

Defense, by James White

White begins by describing his presentation so far as consisting of “overwhelming and consistent testimony of Scripture”. He accuses Hunt of “ignoring the exegesis I offered” and dismissing others and ignoring context. He then claims Hunt turned “is not able” into “is not willing” (John 6:44 and 8:34), but examining Hunts actual words shows that he said no such thing; he was making the point that “can” in those contexts means permission, not ability. But I think a better explanation is along the lines of the ancient custom of a king having to raise his scepter to allow someone to approach him. A person had the right to come before the king, but if the king was not willing to listen to them they would be killed. So what Jesus is saying is that people can come to the Father, but the Father must give permission to live. Yet it cannot be overemphasized that it is Jesus who makes us acceptable in the Father’s sight. And since Jesus said He would draw “all men” to Himself (a scripture White has ignored), it means He will not fail to make anyone who is willing acceptable to the Father.

White makes a big deal out of Hunt’s misuse of Greek grammar concerning permission vs. ability, yet Calvinism does a significant amount of that itself (e.g. John 3:16). But the larger issue of course is that of interpretation, and White’s continual repetition that Hunt relies on “tradition”. Surely the reader has taken note of his repetitiveness by now. To add that Hunt is “adamantly refusing to allow Scripture to define the order of salvation and the nature of saving faith” is wild speculation since Hunt made no such statements. White seems to be having difficulty focusing on the point he is making about grammar. His mocking statement about placing one’s interpretation over scripture in order to fit it into a preconceived theology is another case of irony in light of his own practice of the same, as we will see in the next chapter.

In quoting Luke 13:23 White hopes to convince the reader that when Jesus said that only a few would be able to enter through the narrow gate, it means only a few would be given that ability by God. But he imposes his interpretation on it, because it can just as easily mean that only those who freely placed faith in Jesus will have that ability. In other words, White does not address how that ability is received, but only presumes his own view. This is exactly what he accuses Hunt of doing.

Final Remarks, by Dave Hunt

Hunt begins by noting that White’s “overwhelming” evidence consists only of a few select verses, none of which clearly states what he claims they do; the meanings must be inferred. He also points out that the issue, as I have noted as well, is not about the requirement of ability but the source of that ability. And White has ignored many verses himself, especially Jesus’ command to “strive”.

Final Remarks, by James White

White’s response is yet another round of “Hunt relies on tradition”, with added disparaging remarks about “libertarian free will”. He introduces, in a conclusion no less (which he warned the reader about at the beginning), new terminology: “general” and “specific” callings of God. Hunt has never denied the general calling, so now White adds to the definition of “calling”. Declaring himself the victor in exegesis, White proceeds to intimate that Hunt simply misunderstands a lot of verses. Note that the charge is not mere disagreement, but a declaration of misunderstanding. Then he makes much ado about Hunt’s “eisegesis” while ignoring his own, as if he has not done any personal interpretation at all. Either both sides can interpret or neither can. Yes, we must apply the same standards to both sides.

We begin now the detailed arguments for both sides; please refer to the original debate at Scribd. And although I’m naming my post titles “parts” so they are kept in sequence, note that the debate itself is divided into two Parts: Affirmed and Denied. The debaters exchange comments several times under each chapter in the Part.

Part I: Calvinism Affirmed

CHAPTER ONE: GOD’S ETERNAL DECREE by James White

White begins with a citation from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. But that quote says nothing a non-Calvinist would deny or object to. White implies, though, that those who deny Calvinism’s definition of God’s sovereignty are “in rebellion against Him” and “seek to ‘edit’ Him down to a more ‘manageable’ and ‘manlike’ deity.” The Calvinist views this sovereignty as apparently unrelated to God’s character, such that God must not allow man the slightest say in any decision of consequence. It so limits man’s free will as to make it a mere case of choosing which evil thing to do. To disagree with this definition is, according to Calvinism, a desire to treat God as some sort of president in a democracy. This illustrates the Calvinist penchant for absolute black-and-white thinking; if it is not this, it must be that, and there cannot be any other choices.

By continually depicting God’s right to allow human free will as man bossing God around, White carries on the Calvinist tradition of that which he claims only non-Calvinists do: mischaractarize the opposing view. Again, that God has the sovereign right to allow His creatures freedom to choose or reject the free gift of salvation in Christ is hardly a matter of God being placed beneath those creatures. If I allow my dog to choose which treat he prefers, am I placing my dog in authority over me? This is exactly what Calvinism thinks of human free will. In no way does this impinge upon the honor or glory of God.

Under The Counsel Of His Will and following, White continues to burn the straw man of Calvinism’s own declaration of the non-Calvinist view of free will as being antithetical to God’s sovereignty. He ignores the distinction between man controlling God and God allowing man to choose. Picking various incidents from the Old Testament (OT) which show God’s power and plan, yet ignoring the many others which show God giving people choices, White hopes to convince the reader that this is the whole picture. But acknowledging that God will at times override the usual arena of man’s free will is hardly an argument for denying it at all times. In his rhetorical questions White again mischaractarizes the limited free will that non-Calvinists actually believe in as something completely unrestrained.

After all that straw-man burning, White cries ‘misrepresentation’ again against those who are allegedly “opponents of God’s sovereignty”. But it is not God’s sovereignty we deny, only the Calvinist definition of it. Then we see that all this was for the purpose of building up a case in favor of absolving God from being the author of sin even thought nothing can happen without His divine decree. He quotes the 1689 Confession which does no more than assert this to be true, as if one can win an argument simply by declaring their view to be so. In defining ‘compatibilism’ White carefully adds that this belief holds “when viewed properly”. And who decides what is proper? This is exacly like the StarWars statement from Obi Wan that claims truth depends on one’s point of view. The account of Joseph and his brothers is cited in support, but this has no bearing on answering the question of whether God decreed the evil Joseph’s brothers intended in the first place.

The argument continues with the passage in Acts 4:27-28 concerning God’s plan to use the evil men of Jesus’ day to bring about the prophesied crucifixion. Again, this example of God’s intervention in human history is not an argument against all free will, especially of individual responsibility. As with Pharaoh of old, God will sometimes use the evil people have already chosen and bend it farther for His purposes. But such exceptions never prove rules; they only disprove them. Again, we are only being presented with half the evidence.

White concludes this section with a repeat of the false dillemma between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. It is most certainly not true that “God does not sovereignly reign over His creation” unless He always and without exception forces all people to act. If God chose to allow free will, who are Calvinists to deny Him this right?

Response, by Dave Hunt

Hunt begins as I did with an analysis of the Calvinist distortion of the concept of God’s sovereignty. He rightly asks, “But where is God’s love?” This is what non-Calvinists mean when we say they distort sovereignty, for it makes that sovereignty independent from all else that is true about God, as if sovereignty exists in a moral vacuum. Hunt adds an important point to the fact that Calvinism does indeed make God the ultimate author of sin: “The Baptist Confession exults that God’s ’sight penetrates to the heart of all things.’ Penetrates to the heart of what He Himself causes? What is the point?”

Continuing to expose the contradictions inherent in this disproportionate sovereignty, Hunt wonders how the Calvinist God could love those He predestined to eternal suffering. I would add that the non-Calvinist believes people are not sent to hell by God but by their own choice. If God is eternal and the source of all that is good, then the only kind of place He could make for people who do not wish to be with Him for eternity is an eternal place where there is nothing of God, which means nothing good. How could it be otherwise? In contrast, Calvin’s God does not love those whose eternal suffering He decreed from eternity past.

Then Hunt makes a point I’ve often made as well: without free will, man’s “love” of God would be a sham. Another one is the fact that if God either prevents a sin or turns it for ultimate good, this still does not explain what or who caused the sin in the first place. And he rightly points out that God receives no glory in forcing the wills of those whose will is already forced. Why else would God need to point out those exceptions to free will? The exposure of White’s slip of the pen (”God has a purpose in what He allows”) is excellent as well: can God ‘allow’ what He has ordained? This is a legitimate situation where only one thing can be true: either God decrees or He allows.

Defense, by James White

White begins this section with charges of ad hominem argumentation, a curious move for someone who prefaced the debate by declaring his opponent unfit to participate. He accuses Hunt of being off-topic and repeates the charge of misrepresentation— after cautioning the reader to watch for such repetitions. And he re-asserts the standard Calvinist claim that those who wind up in hell have “freely” chosen to do so, without addressing the inherent fallacy of declaring the existence of “choice” in the absence of alternatives to choose from. It is no defense at all to claim that by not choosing to save them, God has not reprobated them.

Then White appeals to the reader to simply declare Hunt’s responses to his cited scriptures as proof that Hunt did not understand the concept of compatibilism. He charges Hunt with ignoring God’s “good intentions” in allowing Joseph to be sold into slavery, even though these same readers can easily see where Hunt addressed them. He also charges Hunt with going “beyond the text” in saying scripture is silent about whether God caused the evil in people’s hearts, even though Hunt was only responding to the Calvinist claim that this must be the case. It appears that whenever Hunt follows White’s statements to their logical conclusions, White calls it “going beyond the text” and “a nonresponse” [sic]. To demand to know where “foreknew” is seen in the text is no different than the demand to know where “fore-ordained” is seen in the text.

If the purpose of this debate is about Calvinism, why does White complain that Hunt “did not choose to present a positive defense of his own beliefs”? Had he done so, White would surely have repeated the charge of Hunt being off topic. In showing what things cannot be derived from the text, Hunt is only practicing both accepted exegesis and staying on topic. And White’s string of sarcastic questions shows once again his own misunderstandings of his opponent’s arguments. To call those arguments “objections to the sovereignty of God” shows White’s own ignoring of his opponent’s points. Even in his footnote at the end of the section, White adds more ad hominem in mocking Hunt by assuring the reader that “no reply will be forthcoming from” Hunt on the issue of types of love.

Final Remarks, by Dave Hunt

Hunt points out that White claimed “God could… restrain all evil”, which is quite incompatible with claims of God’s love. In spite of God’s statement in 1 Tim. 2:4 that He “desires all men to be saved”, Calvinism teaches that this is not true at all. And since God does not desire to condemn anyone, then the fact that anyone is indeed condemned actually means Calvinism denies God’s sovereignty. Hunt also calls White out on the sophistry of calling it “choice” to be unable to keep from choosing to reject God. Lastly, he shows quotes that refute White’s charge of “‘vague allegation of a connection’ between Augustine and Catholicism”, and reminds White of scriptural requirements for judging people by their works.

Final Remarks, by James White

White shows confusion here about Hunt’s argument concerning why God doesn’t restrain all evil, even though it was White’s own statement Hunt was quoting. Hunt was asking White this question, not trying to give his own view. Again White shows his own inability to remember the topic at hand. Then he simply quotes someone else (Spurgeon), as if Hunt is supposed to either debate him too or lie down in the face of an alleged authority whose statement ends all debate.

CALVINISM DENIED, by Dave Hunt

Predictably, I agree with Hunt’s assessment of the goal of Calvinism, and that it must be false if the God of the Bible is love. And I think his questions about the Calvinist view of non-Calvinists are valid and deserve clear, unambiguous answers. Either salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, or it is by pledging allegience to the TULIP. Either non-Calvinists can be Christians, or they cannot. In my personal experience, some Calvinists would concede that I appear to be as saved as they do, but that no one can be sure until they die. But if, as Hunt quoted Piper and Gerstner as saying, no one can be a non-Calvinist Christian, then the answer is clear: they consider us lost.

The Anabaptist issue is one that I never hear Calvinists acknowledge, so I would agree with Hunt’s statement about Calvinists basically usurping the honor of having been the only Christian opposition to Rome. Resistance to Rome was not owned by Calvinists, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding. And my own research confirms Hunt’s claims about the early Reformers claiming that infant baptism was absolutely necessary for anyone to be saved. As Hunt stated, rejection of this was one of the two reasons Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake. And lest anyone fault Hunt for giving such attention to these things, they should remember that these same atrocities committed by Rome were part of the alleged impetus for the Reformation in the first place.

I did not realize before reading this part of the debate that Calvin is the source of the teaching that water baptism is supposed to be the NT (New Testament) version of circumcision. As Hunt points out, not only is this idea completely absent from scripture, it could only apply to males. But Hunt does bring up a vital point: that anyone who claims to be a teacher of scripture must exhibit the fruit of the Spirit and not only knowledge of the scripture (see also 1 Cor. 13). The apostle Paul made it clear that leaders in the community of believers had to have the highest standards of conduct and love for people. And Hunt’s statement about the irony of Calvin’s sacramentalism is important as well.

Another point not typically admitted by Calvinists to non-Calvinists is the belief that the children of the elect are automatically saved. While this is the only consistent conclusion one can come to if also claiming inherited sin from unbelievers, neither is taught in scripture (see esp. Eze. 18). In the light of such basic errors, as well as lacking love for those who disagreed with him, how can Calvin be considered the great theologian many make him out to be?

Hunt ends this section with a return to the Augustinian roots of Calvin’s theological views. Even Piper admits (calling it a paradox), “one of the most esteemed fathers of the Roman Catholic Church ‘gave us the Reformation’”. Calvinists need to answer Hunt’s question: “What, then, of the boast that Calvinism is the Reformation?”

These two posts have still only been an introduction to the details of the debate. The next one begins detailed argumentation from each side.

I don’t remember precisely how many years ago it was when I first came across the the theological system known as Calvinism. But I was introduced to it by an online friend, who provided recommended links and book titles. I read through those and took notes over a period of about six months, and of course everything seemed so very airtight and logical. But in the spirit of Prov. 18:17 I knew I must give equal effort to examining the arguments in opposition to this system. So I did, and again I took notes.

At the end of it I compared the arguments and scoured the scriptures once again, concluding that Calvinism as defined by its proponents today is a reprehensible smear against the very nature of God, and an oft-mentioned reason for rejection of the gospel. If, as Calvinists frequently claim, all opposition to it is based upon failure to understand what it teaches, then we can only explain how so many and varied groups of people have thus failed by concluding that Calvinists have done the poorest job of clarifying their teachings.

Several years ago there was a debate on Calvinism between Dave Hunt and James White, with White arguing for the affirmative (supporting Calvinism). You can read the PDF of the debate at Scribd. Since White is a respected representative of Calvinism and Hunt of non-Calvinism, such a debate serves as a valuable microcosm of the larger debate which has raged since Calvin. I reproduce below only the outline of the debate, adding my comments beneath each point. So please read through the debate first. And be sure not to skim over the parts by the opposing viewpoint to your own, only reading your side’s assessment of their words. I made a similar mistake taking the word of my Calvinist friend’s assessment, who naturally concluded that of course Hunt was obviously the “bad guy” with an un-Christlike attitude. Having later read it for myself, of course I have the opposite opinion.

CALVINISM AFFIRMED, by James White

White begins with unsubstantiated claims: that Hunt “misquoted Matthew 23:37″, and that his objections to Calvinism were based upon “common misconceptions”. This is what every Calvinist I’ve ever met has claimed. Yet as I said, one must wonder why pretty much everyone who isn’t a Calvinist doesn’t know what their “actual beliefs” are, if this claim is true.

White then likens Hunt’s argument to those of Roman Catholicism, in an obvious attempt to assign guilt by association. Yet Calvin himself praised and got the bulk of his theology from Augustine, who is cited by both the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) and Calvin as their “father”. The irony of White’s tactic here seems to have escaped him. Then White tries to put himself in a position to judge Hunt’s qualification to go out and study Calvinism and then write a book, as if no one could possibly grasp Calvinism without years and years of study. But this too exposes the inherent complexity and high philosophy of the Calvinist theological system. If one must have practically a university degree in order to understand it (or be allowed to write a book about it), one suspects that Calvinists “doth protest too loudly” about being misunderstood.

In lambasting Hunt’s book, What Love Is This?, White uses much subjective and vague terminilogy: “the tenor was harsh… attacks upon historic figures were unfair and unkind, revealing a bias… misuse of sources… misconceptions… tradition over sound exegesis…”. I am sure White would not accept such cheap accusations in return. But his condescending attitude toward Hunt as some ignorant rube who needs to be properly educated is quite conceited and brash. Again, White would not endure such insults in return.

White boldy proclaims that “Dave Hunt does not understand the Reformed faith”, going on to hurl further invectives against his book. He basically calls Hunt a liar when discussing “traditions”, then claims as all Calvinists do that only Calvinism is real Christianity, and that Calvinism is the only possible conclusion one can come to from reading scripture “consistently, honestly, and thoroughly”. It is one thing to declare all who disagree with us mistaken or deluded, but quite another to call them heretics. (Note: White didn’t use the “H” word, but described it thoroughly.) In light of all that, White’s challenge to the reader about holding both sides to the same standards is quite bold.

Under “The Bible vs. Personalities” White ignores the fact of the RCC claiming Augustine as their theological founder, and accuses Hunt of believing “that if a teacher of the past held to doctrines he disagrees with, everything that person believed was wrong”. How anyone could make such a claim and expect it not to be challeneged is beyond me. But he continues to do the very thing he accuses Hunt of doing: assigning guilt by association. Is it not White who declares that everything the RCC teaches must be wrong? And then he tries to claim that Hunt errs in using the term Calvinism! But non-calvinists use the term for the same reason Calvinists do: it’s a handy label. And Calvinists go on to assign the label Arminian to all who are non-Calvinists, regardless of whether or not they follow the teachings of Arminius. Yes, let’s use the same standards for both sides.

Under “God’s Character, God’s Love” White accuses Hunt of bowing to culture by exchanging “sound biblical teaching” (which he already claimed must be Calvinism) for “sentimental traditions”. Next White claims, in accordance with standard Calvinist thinking, that the free will of man to accept or reject salvation must necessarily mean that God is not free to elect and regenerate. But this is hardly an established or uncontested presumption; non-Calvinists argue that God has the sovereign right to allow man this freedom. White also argues that God cannot love all people while also being just to them and therefore punishing those who reject Him. This shows his fundamental misunderstanding of how God can be both loving and holy. He goes on to conclude that this makes “God less than the creature, man”.

White recognizes that we all experience varying types of love, but ignores the scriptures saying that God “loved the world” and that we must “love our neighbor as ourself”. So it is in fact White who fails to distinguish all the types of love, omitting love for mankind, the love of people just because they are made in the image of God. He does not seem to comprehend that God can rightly judge those He loves. This is very basic Christianity, not some modern sentimental invention.

White again displays great boldness in advising us to “point out the results of Mr. Hunt’s assertions”, as if he has made none of his own. Contrary to his assertion that “man must have the final say in the matter”, God’s allowance for us to freely choose is God’s “final say in the matter”. White would deny God this sovereign right. And his extrapolations of this belief lead him to some absurd conclusions, showing not Hunt but himself to be the one not following scripture. Yet he continues to claim victory before his opponent has even begun to write, claiming Hunt “has no answers” and resorting to mockery to emphasize it.

White prefaces his Conclusion with the staple Calvinist belief that God would be both just and holy in sending every human being that ever lived to eternal hell, just because through no fault of their own they were born in sin and unable to “choose” anything but to reject the gospel. Those whom God “elects” are supposed to rejoice in their good fortune and glory in the “love” of God for only them. Were this being done by any human we would easily recognize the inherent evil and injustice in such a scenario, but somehow Calvinism must chalk up to “mystery” how God’s love and justice can be higher than ours while doing that which is lower than anything but the most vile scum of humanity has ever done. To use White’s own terminology, it is this reprehensible maligning of the character of God which is “scandalously false” and Calvinism’s “fatal flaw”.

In the Conclusion White again boldly invites the reader to examine tradition, admitting that it can be uncomfortable to do so. I can only hope that White’s prayer is one he will offer in sincerity concerning his own beliefs.

The first letter of Peter is about how Christians should behave in an increasingly hostile world. The first chapter is more theological, up to verse 11 of the second chapter. Then he begins more practical instructions that flow from those basic teachings. But vs. 2:18 through 3:7 are a list of instructions to specific groups, after which he returns to generalities. It is that list which I will focus on today.

Peter specifies three main groups: servants, wives, and husbands. Notice first of all that he does not present these as pairings of master/slave and husband/wife; he addresses servants without addressing masters. The word servant is oiketes which means house servant or “domestic”, and the word for their masters is despotes which means owners or employers when contrasted with domestics. These domestics are to hupotasso their employers. This word is not about subservience to an overlord but support and identification with a person in some leading capacity.¹

As for the word translated “respect” or “fear”, the Greek word is phobos. Like our English word “fear”, it can have a range of nuances: abject terror, a mild sense of foreboding, or a realistic caution. Which one of those it means depends of course on the context. And since Peter speaks of both kind and unkind employers, the nuance will change depending on which kind the domestic is dealing with. We might well ask what kind of fear an employee would have for a good and kind employer, but anyone who has ever held a job understands this kind. At the very least, we fear losing our jobs if we fail to satisfy the directives of the boss. So while one would certainly respect their employer, there is a separate element of fear as well, however mild it may be.

This may all seem very clear and simple, but the plot thickens when we look at the instructions to wives. But before we do, we must know that as in just about every language except English, Greek has what is called “grammatical gender”. It is the assigning of male or female pronouns or word affixes which are completely unrelated to biology. For example, in Hebrew the pronoun for the Spirit of God is feminine (she), and in Greek it is neuter (it). So the way we can tell which parts of a Greek sentence go together is by looking at the grammatical gender. This will prove critical to our understanding of what Peter says to Christian women.

1 Pet. 3:1 begins with “likewise”, so there is similarity (witness by behavior) between what Peter said to employees and what he will say to wives. As I’ve written in some of my books in studying the writings of Paul, there was a Roman law at the time called “the marriage without hand” wherein a woman’s allegiance was to her father for life, not to any husband. Her father could take her back at any time and give her to another man. So the instruction, both from Paul and Peter, is for Christian women to identify with their husbands instead.

But Peter adds the purpose for this instruction: to win over unbelieving husbands; remember the larger context of minding our behavior for the world to see. The phrase in Greek, “if any are-being-stubborn [apeitheo] to-the word” is always used in a context of rejecting the gospel message; it is not used in any context where the topic is backslidden believers (as far as I know; if anyone knows of evidence to the contrary, please let me know). It literally means to not be persuaded and is held in opposition to faith, not obedience.² So it clearly refers to unbelievers and not backslidden or immature believers.

So rather than a general instruction to all Christian wives, Peter specifies here that his instructions are to Christian wives of non-Christian husbands. Theirs was a most difficult position to be in, since they could be divorced or killed by their husbands if they tried to convert them. They had little opportunity to speak to their husbands about religious or spiritual matters. That is why Peter leans so heavily here on behavior and depth of character, qualities the culture did not believe women possessed. Christian husbands, in contrast, had no right to silence their wives and no need to be converted. If they were sinning, they needed to repent, and their wives had every right in Christ to say so.

Continuing in verse 2, Peter shows exactly how this behavior will be a witness to the gospel. Here is the literal English rendering:

observing of-the in fear pure behavior of-you [pl.]

The blue words are grammatically masculine, and the red words are grammatically feminine. So we can easily see that it is not the women but the unbelieving men who will “fear”. This ties in with the phrase about being “apeitheo to-the word”, because the “fear” of God is what such people lack. And it is these unbelieving husbands who will “observe” the pure (not “chaste”, which denotes sexual purity whereas this word refers to the inner person) behavior of their Christian wives and thus “fear” this wordless gospel message.

Peter goes on to emphasize the inner strength of character a Christian woman must develop, which society did not think possible. But we encounter another debatable passage in vs. 5 and 6. Verse five is in the present tense, not the past as it is typically translated. And again we see the word hupotasso in conjunction with “their own husbands”. It is only verse 6 which has to be in the past tense because it refers to people who were long dead, Sarah and Abraham. But instead of hupotasso we have Sarah rendering hupakouo to Abraham, which means “to attend to” (same word as when a servant “answered” the door for Peter after his miraculous escape from prison in Acts 12:13).

But what of Sarah calling Abraham her ‘lord’? And what does it have to do with women not being afraid or dismayed? The only recorded instance we have of Sarah calling Abraham ‘lord’ is in Gen. 18:12 when she laughed to herself at the prospect of becoming pregnant by her very old husband. The times we see her doing what Abraham said are when he twice passed her off as his sister in order to save his own skin (Gen. 12:13, 26:9), and she also stood up to him regarding the slave woman Hagar (Gen. 21:10). Is it not this strong, fearless Sarah that Peter is telling Christian women to be like? Peter does not say they are like her if they call their husbands ‘lord’, but if they do not fear and are not dismayed.

Now we can see why taking the traditional rendering of vs. 2 creates a contradiction, because first Peter tells women to fear, and then he tells them not to fear. Rather, he tells them to bring the fear of God to their unbelieving husbands through character and quality, then tells them to fear nothing nor be dismayed.

The last point to cover is vs. 7, which also begins with “likewise”, continuing the list of ways to live the Christian witness. The Christian husband is to “make a home together with” his wife, not build a castle with her as his maid. And Peter appeals to the men’s “knowledge” that women have “the less stable income”. This is typically translated more literally as “weaker vessel” even though there is apparently no firm consensus on what it means. But I have the impression that it is an idiom (a good place to start in the case of any such puzzling phrase), and in classical literature it did refer to being at an economic disadvantage. Peter says this along with calling women “joint heirs”, so he is drawing an analogy between social inheritance and spiritual inheritance.

It should be noted regarding the matter of how the husband treats his wife that Peter does not merely say that if he fails to honor her God not answer his prayers, but that God will block them and refuse to hear them. The Greek word is egkopto and is much stronger than the idea of merely ignoring something. God will actively oppose and hinder the prayers of a Christian man who fails to honor his wife.

Let’s summarize the list now:

• Employees, support your employers whether they’re nice or not.
• Wives, identify with your husbands instead of your fathers, so that you can witness without words to them; though they are hostile to the gospel your purity and depth of character will cause them to fear God. Do not be fearful or intimidated, but instead be like Sarah.
• Husbands, treat your wives as the joint-heirs they are, building up the home together with them and remembering their social disadvantage, or God will thwart your prayers.

Of course there is much more to glean from this letter, but the point I wanted to make today is how important it is to study scripture from all possible angles, from the stroke of a pen to the larger context of all of scripture. We rely too heavily on tradition and translation, and we cannot afford to go on blindly trusting in closed committees of fallible men. We all must search the scriptures and listen to all sides before dogmatically stating what a passage must mean.

¹ GWTW
² Rom. 27:8