This whole emphasis on hunt being "unqualified" and totally ignorant of the Reformed position is way overblown. I found the book to be mostly truthful, though I don't agree with everything he says. For instance, he does uses hyperbole such as "Calvinism is just warmed over Catholicism" as was quoted above. But I think all of this is being overgeneralized into him not knowing anything he's talking about, and so "misrepresenting" the other side.
As for being "unresearched", When Calvin was being questioned, we were told the question was not "Does this person teach what someone else taught?" but "Does this person teach what Scripture teaches?" Of course the assumption is "The answer is that Calvin did teach what Scripture taught regarding soteriology. Your problem is not with the words of Calvin but rather with the words of Scripture.", and this is coloring people's treatment of Hunt. White says on his site "do you not think [all the great historical Calvinist leaders to the present] have heard these objections", but on the same token, Hunt and the rest of us have heard all the Calvinist position over and over, often rubbed in our face in a glib "that's tough" tone, so this whole issue of being researched in Reformed doctrine is a smokescreen. He is responding to what its advocates are saying today. (Problem is, many of them have actually shied away from some of the harder aspects of their own position as historically posited!)
All of these "reputable" authorities who told him not to publish the book and then "refuted" it happen to be Calvinists, and they obviously don't like his straightforward approach to the ramifications of Reformed theology, true or not.
Unfortunately, the Calvinist side seems to have the most scholars, and the more Arminian contemporary evangelical church is, as White, Hanegraaf and others have rightly pointed out, suffering from a state of doctrinal apathy, ignorance and indifference. So just like in the CCM debate, the proponents of some "offensive" doctrine (whether traditional hynms only or limited atonement) take advantage of this, and heap up all the "scriptures", arguments and "documentation"/research to back up their interpretations, (But remember, this does not guarantee truth, as as all the cults use this method too, and it can be misinterpreted) and the other side remains largely silent, or uses weak cliché arguments ("music is neutral"; "God limits His sovereignty", etc). (On the opposite end of the Arminian spectrum is the old-line fundamentalists, including the radical KJV fringe (Riplinger, Grady, Ruckman, etc), who are anything but apathetic, but instead come out worse than the others.) Then this is the ultimate proof that the "hard" position is "just right"; "this is just what the Bible teaches, and you people have no answers, but simply resist it because you don't like it", "you believe whatever your mind thinks is the way it should be" etc.
So when someone finally comes out with a strong answer, the other side (caught by surprise) is aghast, and lashes back defensively (you should see the responses of some CCM critics I have written to, who make a lot of strong criticisms themselves, but can't take it back). The first thing they do is try to dismiss their "credibility"; after all, 'everyone knows' that all the scripture and historical/hermeneutical, etc. evidence always favors our side. If you come to a different conclusion, you have really misrepresented something. It just can't be! (What if Hunt had been well documented and researched? What about someone else who is? Oh, But such a person couldn't possibly be a non-Calvinist, right?) That is the attitude I am sensing here. (Actually, all of the scriptures we are accused of "having no answer for" we have answered. You may not agree with our reading of it, so we can argue as to interpretation. But don't keep saying we are totally baseless and you have all the scripture)
White and the others' responses focus more on these side issues than on the right interpretation of Scripture! It's like that's all they can really "refute" him with.
Do they challenge Calvinists who have not researched the issue and say inaccurate things but agree with them? Would they tell them not to publish their writings? No, they would be assumed to be on the side of the "truth" and automatically "right", "qualified" and "informed".
And I don't know how White and others can even challenge his tone, or unfortunate statements Hunt made construed to question the salvation of Calvinists, or cry "misrepresentation" when Calvinists are the ones totally trashing Arminianism, and its "weak god", "sovereign man", "works salvation" etc. Once again, the attitude is that this position is infallible, and the other side so false so how DARE anyone think they can truthfully answer us back, even in the same fashion we responded to them!
Once again, as for the "misrepresentation", there is nothing Hunt said that does not accurately reflect at least SOME Calvinists' position. The problem is, there are so many variants of Calvinism, just as here when we speak of people being "elected to Hell", right away everyone jumps in disclaiming "hypercalvinism". So I modified my language, but some still generalize Calvinism as election to Hell, because that does still seem to be the ultimate ramification of it (And BTW, White affirms that position in his comment on Rom.9 in Potter's Freedom and how "sovereignty" "pulsates through these verses brushing any free will proponent aside", or something like that. Yet this is the type of triumphalistic rhetoric Hunt is being criticized for)
The prime example they focus on is something he quoted Spurgeon as saying. Spurgeon holds the hybrid view that many here hold, and some things are contradictory (even though they don't see it that way). So when Hunt quotes one thing he stated, White and others can go find something else, and say "see, he doesn't teach that; Hunt doesn't know what he is saying' he is lying through his teeth"!
But everyone claims their variation is the "true" Calvinism, and if you're going to deal with Calvinism, you must answer our exact representation of it, else the whole person's teaching is dismissed as "dishonest", "misrepresenting", "not knowing anything about our position" and "unqualified to say anything about it". (A quick way to "win" the argument by default!)
But Hunt's book is addressing all of Calvinism, from Hyper on down, and didn't feel necessary to differentiate between them. (Vance's book does a somewhat better job of that, and still shows they ultimately lead back to the same thing).
Just remember, when Calvinists like begin making their sweeping statements beating up on non-Calvinism and its "man centeredness", and how it has eroded the truth, etc, they don't then disclaim the lesser distinctions between the different branches of Calvinism, --which all agree on "sovereignty" (however they express it) and therefore are treated as being on the same side (the side of "truth") in the ultimate issue of "sovereignty" versus free-will; so they should not then get mad and cry "misrepresentation" when the other side responds and lumps them all together in one rebuttal.
If you all agree that the "non-elect" had no chance to be saved, whether God actively reprobated them against their will or passively preteritioned them according to their will, and that this is one of the distinctives of "sovereignty", then that is what Hunt and the rest of us are rebutting, and I think Hunt was basically on the mark in that objective, even if everything he said was not completely right.
[ January 08, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]
