Books on Calvinism/Arminianism

Chet, my friend (and I mean that), I am not saying that at all. The blurb is put on the ad to sell the book. It is supposed to be a synopsis of what the book is about. I don't think that is controversial in the least. I am not sure why people are bent out of shape about this. All I did was point out that the advertising blurb contains a misrepresentation. If you want to blame bad writing (as Eric did), then be my guest. I have more faith in the writers than that. People who write for a living know how to do it.

Then mention a third besides open theism or hyper Calvinism. The point is that either you believe God sovereignly and gracious elects individuals to salvation without respect to anything at all in them (Calvinist) or you believe that man makes the final decision about whether they are saved or not (Arminianism). What else is there??

Not really. But "non-Calvinist" is not a term that is used much.

That was spoken tongue in cheek. My point was to show that everyone accepts that there are two sides in this discussion.

 

I was speaking tongue in cheek there Lorelei. You know that I don't know your mind or motivations. What came through was that you omitted a part of the post that was an explicit refutation of the conclusion you tried to draw from that quote. In so doing, you made me look as if I was doing something I was indeed not doing. When you quote something, quote it fairly; don't take it out of context.

I am not following you here. The point was that I was showing how a particular argument can be made. I was not necessarily making that argument. You used that as an attempt to show that I was being inconsistent with my own standards of misrepresenting things. You were accusing me of misrepresenting your beliefs, not in the original post, but in this one where you cite it as evidence of my violation of my own rules.

According to you, the point was (and I quote): The bottom line is that you can't expect something of us that you refuse to do yourself. You continually shout these demands at us then turn around and do the opposite yourself. So please, do take this advice, or at least admit that we AREN'T breaking your set of rules.[/b]

Then you cite my encouragement 1) If you want to discuss or debate Calvinism and Arminianism, please discuss what the other side actually believes, not what you think they believe, or what you wish they believe..

Then you post this quote above. Now, how is that not accusing me of breakign my own rules?? That is what the point we were talking about was. And in the extended quote I gave, I showed that I was not breaking my own rules; I was pointing out an inconsistency in your approach.

But let's not forget what brought my comments. You said that even if Hunt was wrong, he was not lying becuase he really believed it to be the truth about Calvinism. Then you proceed to accuse James White of blatant lies (I think that was the word you used). I showed how White can honestly make the point that Hunt denies God's freedom. Remember, whether Hunt does or not is not the point according to you. The criteria for lying is connected to "honest belief."

In a nutshell, you argue that Hunt did not lie because he honestly believed what he was saying. But you accuse James White of blatant lying even though he honestly believed what he was saying. So I merely showed how you had a double standard.

I agree. I have practiced this consistently. As much as there are points I would like to make about the inconsistency of your positions, I do not do it because you do not believe it. I am not letting anyone draw conclusions. I don't have that kind of power.

You already have. By the way, I thought the way you started your other thread about "both can be true" was an excellent way to enter a discussion. It quoted some writing and then drew some conclusions and made some points.

According to you, he didn't since he really believes what he was saying to be true. So the answer is "No."

Actually I don't think a simple yes or no will suffice. I think there is a place to discuss conclusions about belief and to see how to fit together. Honestly, (and now I am giving my opinion) I think your side denies the freedom of God. However, I think there is a right way to discuss it and a wrong way. The right way is to make my points and ask you to show how this conclusion is not valid. The wrong way is to pontificate about it in inflammatory language that involves taking people's quotes out of context and in violation of their intention.

But in any event, this discussion has probably pretty much run its course. There is not much new being said here. I will try to back away from it. (Just don't say anything to enflame me ).

 

Pastor Larry said:

Do you really think that every single Calvinist is in a great conspiracy???

Ssssh! Ixnay on the onspiracycay.

 

PL,

When I stated that you were disobeying your own set of rules, I used three examples not just the one. The first point I was trying to make was that you defended others who broke the first rule, while continually demanding that we obey it. You personally didn't extend the courtesy of the last two points in my opinion.

I realize that maybe I didn't make myself clear enough in the first point, however, instead of assuming that I purposely tried to misrepresent you, you should have asked for clarification first. Isn't that what you have been telling us that we should do?

As for why I only quote part of the thread is 1) I believe everyone reading here already read the original quote and 2) I have listened to the advice of other moderators on this board and only quote the parts of the discussion I am referring to. It saves space by shortening and makes the entire post less lengthy. If I cut out portions you thought were important I apologize, but quoting them to prove your point without the suggestion that you KNOW why I didn't add them would have been the prudent thing to do. Whether you want to believe me or not I totally intended to prove how you defended Calvinists who do what you reprimand non-Calvinists for doing. I never intended to suggest otherwise. I for one, should know my intent.

But let's not forget what brought my comments. You said that even if Hunt was wrong, he was not lying becuase he really believed it to be the truth about Calvinism. Then you proceed to accuse James White of blatant lies (I think that was the word you used). I showed how White can honestly make the point that Hunt denies God's freedom. Remember, whether Hunt does or not is not the point according to you. The criteria for lying is connected to "honest belief."

In a nutshell, you argue that Hunt did not lie because he honestly believed what he was saying. But you accuse James White of blatant lying even though he honestly believed what he was saying. So I merely showed how you had a double standard.</font>[/QUOTE]

And I brought up James White's statement to prove how Calvinists do the exact same thing to us. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise. I don't normally whine about his false conclusions because I realize he believes them to be true. I merely pointed out the obvious misrepresentation using the same terminology about him that you did about Dave Hunt. Maybe it was the wrong way to make my point, but again that is why it was brought up.

I don't believe that excusing one side for drawing those same conclusions is consistant. Neither is drawing conclusions about why I post what I post. But that's just me.

And I think your belief misrepresents God.

Most of the inflammatory language I have seen in this thread has come from you. That has already been pointed out, not only by me but others as well. I realize you do not believe anything you say has been inflammatory, but it appears that more than one person has taken them to be that way. Maybe you should really step back and not just read what you write but actually think about how that statement will read to the person you are posting it to. Talk in terms of the doctrine and don't succomb to attacking the poster's character. If your argument is solid enough you shouldn't have to discredit the character of the person you are discussing the issue with to prove it. Don't always assume that you know why a poster said what they did. If you think it was for malicious intent, ask for clarification first before making an accusation. One question to me would have certainly allowed me the opportunity to explain to you what I meant and why I only posted part of what you said.

I too feel this thread ran it's course, however didn't feel that the final word should be an excuse for falsely accusing my motives, claiming you still know my motives better me and excusing that behavior by saying your statement was "tongue-in-cheek." I believe that behavior is indeed inconsistant with your own set of rules.

Please join me in the other thread. I hope that thread can stay on topic and not get personal.

~Lorelei

 

Forgive me if these may have already been mentioned. Since the thread turned into a "Dave Hunt" debate, I did not go through all the messages.

For the Calvinist side:
Palmer -Five Points
Boettner's stuff
Sproul's stuff - of course

For the non-Calvinist side:

Lightner- The Death Christ Died
Shank- Elect in the Son
Olson - Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism

 

I have heard other people recommend Robert Shank's book as the best defense of Arminianism, though I have not had the opportunity to read it myself.

I have also heard that Shank has apostasized completely since writing that book. I have had no luck verifying this. Is it true?

 

Never heard that. I think Shank passed away back in the early 70's and from what I remember of the preface, updated this work just prior. But I am going by memory, so I may be remembering wrong.

 

Also, here are some other non-Calvinist works that are recommended, though I have not read these yet.

Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the extent of Christ's Atonement
by Norman F. Douty

God's Strategy in Human History
by Roger Forster, Paul Marston
(This is supposed to be top notch from what I hear, but I have not had a chance to read it yet.)

Election & Predestination: Keys to a Clearer Understanding
by Samuel Fisk

And, if for nothing else, Dave Hunt's book is excellent for the bibliography and footnotes.
You can get the pro and con books & articles out of his stuff, since he really used nothing but secondary sources anyway.