Books of a Fether

The Hunt/White Debate ©2009 | free PDF


Though Christ commands us in the Great Commission to preach the gospel to every creature, Calvinism teaches that the elect are regenerated without it and the non-elect cannot accept it. If the gospel is the power of God "to the salvation of everyone that believes" (Mark 16:15), then that power to save is not "regeneration". Why do the regenerated need to hear the gospel? According to White, regeneration is only the first step, so he must agree that there are people who are regenerated but unsaved. Yet if, according to Sproul, "the man, being regenerated, is saved already", White must be mistaken about his assertion that regeneration is not salvation— a point he has used against Hunt many times. So if there is confusion, it is caused by Calvinists themselves, not their opponents.

Then Hunt spends considerable time illustrating the OT practices and teachings that establish God’s offer of salvation for "all people" and not merely "all kinds of people". Likewise for the NT, where the notion of "all kinds" of people is conspicuous by its absence. But Calvinism must interpret verses like John 3:16 as "For God so loved the elect...". Then another contradictory quote from Spurgeon is given, along with noting that not even Spurgeon can get away with hiding his absurd conclusions under the blanket of "mystery".

Response, by James White

Again, nothing new to report. The redefinition of terms already covered for verses like John 3:16 is simply asserted again. And who can make sense of God showing "love to the world" but only for His elect? Is God mocking the reprobate, saying "See, I love these few, but not you!"? He still tries to inject the Calvinist twist onto that famous verse, asserting it as the clear and proper meaning, but assertions are not proofs. The gymnastics required to turn "whosoever" into "who I chose", especially when it depends upon a minority interpretation of the Greek, is sheer desperation. As always, nothing like this would be tolerated if done by non-Calvinists.

Defense, by Dave Hunt

Hunt notes the obvious fact that White did not touch on the issue of whether regeneration is salvation. And if Hunt is reading into the account in Acts about salvation for Gentiles, then why is White allowed to go to such great lengths to read his interpretation into John 3:16? Turning this Calvinist insistence that "world" means "all kinds of people" back on White, Hunt lists several verses that are reduced to absurdities not even Calvinists could accept were they consistent in their substitutions.

Final Remarks, by James White

Other than White’s ignorance of the Hebraic idiom "children of" meaning "people of", nothing new to report.

Final Remarks, by Dave Hunt

Hunt expresses shock at White’s continual denial of God’s frequently expressed desire to save everyone. If White can brush off anything he deems irrelevant, even when it directly addresses the topic at hand, then there is little incentive for Hunt to keep trying. And he notes, as I did, White’s mistaken interpretation of "children of".