This was a very intriguing debate. However, even though I am not "sold" on whether I am Calvinist or Armenian, I felt that James White was a much better debater and made much more convincing points. I wish they had chosen a better Armenian than Dave Hunt as I felt his positions were weak. I do read James White's blog (Alpha and Omega Ministries), but I did not know of him beyond that. I had never heard of Dave Hunt. However, it was even evident that Mr. Hunt wasn't as educated on the matters of Calvinism or, in my opinion, in general. Nonetheless I very much enjoyed the book although it was dry in some places. ( )

After reading this book I have concluded that if it wasn't for the fact that I am an active fire pit user this book was a complete waste of my money. ( )

The debate that takes place in this book consists of two professional apologists talking past each other.

Or, to be fair to James White, it consists of one apologist trying to have a constructive debate with another apologist who doesn't seem to be listening.

If you are hoping to be persuaded by the best arguments that each position (Calvinism/non-Calvinism) has to offer, you may want to keep looking.

On the other hand, if you are looking for a handy reference on what a poor debate looks like in print, by all means, rush out and buy the book. You will not be disappointed. ( )

This is an entertaining read; however, depending on which side of the argument one may stand, frustration eventually builds up towards the end of the book due to the fact that what one may write is not always what one may hear. ( )

This is a fascinating, yet exasperating book – and it is probably so fascinating because it is exasperating and not due to its actual content. First, as to the authors of this written debate: James White is an arrogant, bullying, egomaniacal blowhard and Dave Hunt is an intellectual lightweight par excellence. At times I wanted to punch both of them in the damned throat.

Second, as to the format of the “debate.” It is more formal than the actual transcript of a verbal debate, thus footnotes and accurate quotes, but the absence of a moderator made this book seem as if White and Hunt were debating non-existent third and fourth parties. The editor of this book, conveniently unnamed, should be dragged into the middle of the street and beaten. When he received it he should have sent their responses back and told them to respond to each other.

Now, to myself. I grew up a Southern Baptist. In my late teens and early twenties I developed an admiration for Puritans and Calvinists and idolized Jonathan Edwards. Today in my late twenties I think I am a Free Will Baptist (i.e. Arminianism as Arminius and Episcopus taught it, not Limborch and Wesley, etc.). But I am still a bit undecided, thus my purchase of this book.

Let’s begin with why I think James White is a cocky bastard. He is of that class of Calvinists who think that Calvinism is self-evident in the text of the Bible and that any other system besides Calvinism is tantamount to heresy. He uses the word “exegesis” almost once a page, partly, I think, to show you how smart he is, but mainly to claim that Calvinism is the only way. For instance: “The strength of the Reformed faith… is the exegesis of the inspired text of Scripture” (p. 117). Numerous times White brushes aside any arguments that Hunt makes by denigrating it as just “traditions of men” (pp. 17, 61, 64, and so on and so on and so on ad nauseum). Many times White unilaterally declares that because Hunt did not answer his suppositions (which are infallible anyway, according to him), that Hunt has lost and his Calvinistic points are thus proved. For example, page 162: “Hunt… leaves the exegesis of Romans unrefuted, and hence established.” What arrogance! White will refuse to answer Hunt, claim that Hunt refuses to answer him, and then proceed to talk about something else. The funniest thing is that White declares that Calvinism is plainly taught in the Bible, it is in there just by “meaningful exegesis,” any simp should get it. Then why don’t all churches agree? Like other arrogant Calvinists he declares other views are “traditions” and he says Hunt’s position centers on “libertarian freewill” not on God’s sovereignty. As if Jesus taught TULIP at the Sermon on the Mount. Paradoxically, White says of Hunt that: “The person who does not know he has traditions is the person most enslaved to them” (p. 419). Check the beam in your eye Mr. White. It is called “Calvinism,” not “Plain-Apparent-Meaning-of the-Bible-and-Everyone-Else-is-Dumb-ism.”

Now, to Dave Hunt. Who picked him for this debate? Instead of a scholar like Olson, or Picirilli, or Forlines, we get a guy who is a newcomer to Calvinist theology (and Arminian theology for that matter), and who has but a layman’s grasp of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. Hunt seems to deny human depravity, and most of his arguments stem from “God is love.” Well, yes, but the anti-Calvinist position means so much more. Hunt never sends White reeling like he should. Most Calvinists, when you ask them why God, since he has the power to save all and wants all to be saved, doesn’t pre-elect all to salvation run to the “mysteries of God” defense. “We can’t know!” But Hunt never gets to it. Only once does Hunt attack White’s idiotic offer of “compatibilist free will” as plain bunk. White never really has to explain how God can foreordain every damned thing that will ever happen and has ever happened and continue to state that man has a type of free will. Hunt never gets on double predestination so White can continue to say that it’s man’s own fault for burning in hell. White constructs easily refutable analogies that Hunt doesn’t even address. Arminius and even wishy-washy Wesley attacked Calvinism because it makes God the author of evil, but here is Hunt attacking it because God is love – perhaps two sides of the same coin, but it smacks of hippie-ism and is on the slippery slope to universalism. And how can any self-respecting “anti-Calvinist” (since Hunt refuses to be shackled with the label “Arminian”) not attack perseverance of the saints based on Hebrews 6:4-6? White says that Arminians have to distort scripture and Calvinists are as pure as the driven snow with their “exegesis.” Yet hear how White and other Calvinists stumble and fumble over making “world” (e.g. John 3:16) and “all men” mean “just the elect,” something other than what is plainly meant. (What happened to simple “exegesis”?) And look up what a Calvinist has to do and say about the plain meaning of Hebrews 6:4-6 – it is hilarious. Talk about distortion and eisegesis (which White accuses Hunt of multiple times, e.g. pp. 50, 56, 72, 86, 89, 96, 115, and so on and so on and so on ad nauseum)!

All in all, this book provides much material to mull over and contemplate, and is good for that reason. A Calvinist will read it and say “Damn! I am sooooo right.” They'll agree that all Hunt does is make ad hominem attacks and set up straw men to knock down. All of this without realizing that White does the same exact thing. [Please note my fellow LibraryThing reviewers below. One says: “David [Hunt] pulls no stops at belittling people, using ad hominem and ad hoc argumentation, faulty/non-linear reasoning, and performing eisegesis, etc.” Yet he says White does a “fine job” - no, he uses the same disgusting tactics. The other says Hunt's argument is “one long diatribe of falsities,” again, assuming Calvinism is a foregone conclusion.] A true, dedicated Arminian will say “Dave Hunt is an idiot” and note that White trots out the same tired and easily debatable (refutable?) arguments. An intellectually honest seeker will note that both sides in this debate have some merit and some detriments. If you want a better rebuttal of Calvinistic harangues against Arminian theology get Roger Olson’s very good Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities or even The Free Will Baptist Handbook by J. Matthew Pinson. The best defense of good, biblical, classical Arminianism is Robert E. Picirilli's fine, scholarly Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism, which is irenically polemical and makes convincing arguments against Calvinism - just plain great. ( )