Talk:Dave Hunt (Christian apologist)

Violates Policy
This article is grossly biased and downright mean-spirited currently. It appears Fides_Viva is responsible. I see grammatical errors, thinly-veiled missives, and a completely unbalanced links section wherein only critiques are represented. --T3rmin 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy
Fides Viva, I would refer you to Five_pillars and Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. The history shows neutrality in this article until your edits. The record will also show I've been more than fair in restoring neutrality while maintaining your points. Let's give the reader a chance to draw their own conclusions, shall we? Whether you or I agree with Dave Hunt (and I haven't said I do!) and whether the external links present truthful information or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a repository for information, not opinions. --T3rmin 05:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The following statement are simple fact
"According to Calvinists, the book is inaccurate and misrepresents Calvinism." We all agree to that. This is what Calvinists say regarding the book. It neither supports or denies the validity of said claim. --T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Hunt asserts he is rather addressing the true nature and logical ends of Calvinism." This is Dave's basic response to the above claim. This statement is true, he DOES make this assertion. This statement does not support any idea other than the fact that this is DH's claim. --T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"He also makes direct use of Calvinistic sources, such as Charles Spurgeon, whom Calvinists claim is misrepresented through selective quoting." DH does quote Calvinists directly. Calvinists do claim he quotes them selectively. Both true statements. --T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The following statements are opinion
"Hunt makes direct use of Calvinistic sources, such as Charles Spurgeon, but quotes them in ways that have been considered selective and misleading." The implication here is twofold, that he DOES quote in these "ways", AND that the normative position is/has been that these "ways" ARE "selective and misleading". Both of these ideas are opinions. Attributing these opinions and presenting them as such, as in my version (above), eliminates this bias. --T3rmin 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the first place, it's objectively truth in exactly the same sense as the stuff you favor: they HAVE been considered selective and misleading. Second, he did indeed misrepresent Spurgeon. He said Spurgeon "flatly rejected" Limited Atonement and supported that by quotes, omiting the next sentence where Spurgeon fully endorses Limited Atonement. Not a whole lot of room fopr defending him, there. A.J.A. 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But considered that way by whom? Without qualifying the statement with an attribution, you give it a global scope and therefore endorsement. Obviously you are convinced that he misrepresented Spurgeon. That's fine, however, that is obviously under dispute. You'll notice I'm refraining from defending one side of a disputed position. That's not what Wikipedia is for. --T3rmin 19:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * By making it nothing but a claim, you fundamentally represent the nature of the dispute. It's not that somebody merely asserted that he quoted Spurgeon out of context. They quoted Spurgeon in context and compared that to the version quoted by Hunt and the misrepresentation was obvious. Unless the article makes it plain, it's biased toward Hunt. A.J.A. 19:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The (anti-DH) claimant(s) make(s) a reasonable assertion based on his/their opinion of what Spurgeon's intentions were. DH makes his. Both assume (1)they know Spurgeon's mind at the time and (2)his thoughts/beliefs never changed. The statement "whom Calvinists claim is misrepresented through selective quoting" reflects DH's opponents' opinion regarding Spurgeon, and the implied corrolary "whom Dave Hunt claims is presented accurately through quoting" represents DH's opinion. Perhaps there is a better way both opinions could be presented, but they do need to be posed as such. --T3rmin 19:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, but Hunt's claims about what Spurgeon said aren't a reasonable opinion. See, Spurgeon said, "The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering". That's not something that you could reasonably say accepts or reject limited atonement. That is limited atonement, the doctrine itself, in as clear a language as anyone could want. A.J.A. 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (See below entry under "Fallacies".) If it is so cut-and-dry, and every intelligent person would come to believe as you do, why not give them the chance? The external links contain plenty of anti-DH-biased content which should "prove" your point many times over. Lets keep the bias external. --T3rmin 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This raging preoccupation with Dave Hunt's Calvinism or lack thereof pales in the face of his being a Charismatic, a fact that is nowhere documented in the article proper. Now I'm wondering if that's because any material documenting the same gets deleted. For the record, I new Mr. Hunt personally and brought the matter up with him, to his vociferous defense: he was Charismatic in both belief and praxis. People who were/are familiar with his apologetics critiquing the more bizarre offshoots of the movement and their curious intersections with elements of the occult/new age milieu would be taken aback in surprise at his alignment with the pentecostal interpretation they thought he was putting in his cross-hairs. JohndanR (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Spurgeon

 * "Hunt makes direct use of Calvinistic sources, such as Charles Spurgeon, but quotes them in ways that have been considered selective and misleading."

I'm being more than fair for not saying "ways that are selective and misleading". It's not just Calvinists who consider it that way, it's any honest person who compares Hunt's quote to the unedited paragraphs. A.J.A. 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See my above analysis. Your inferrences are the problem. It is, of course, your opinion that "any honest person" would feel the way you do. --T3rmin 19:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fallacies
This is ridiculous. I refuse to use this article as a forum for expressing my viewpoint, although the temptation is great with everyone else doing it...

You assume, in this Spurgeon thing, that:
 * You are right, everyone else is wrong, and any reasonable person should believe like you do.
 * Spurgeon did not have the capacity to contradict himself.
 * Spurgeon never changed his mind during his life or expressed thoughts/concerns he had which may have given him pause or challenged his other beliefs.

None of these things you can prove. But that is BESIDE THE POINT. The point is we both have opinions, but what needs to be presented here is either both or neither so the reader may draw his own conclusions. --T3rmin 20:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't assume any of the stupid things you're trying to foist on me. But let's look more closely:


 * Well, logic would say you do, but apparently that isn't a concern here... --T3rmin 04:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't assume I'm right. I proved it. There's a slight difference.


 * That Spurgeon contradicted himself is exactly Hunt's defense. Regardless of whether Spurgeon ever contradicted himself, he didn't contradict himself in the occasion under discussion. He said the value of the sacrifice of a Divine Person in infinite, which every Calvinist would agree with, and that its application is limited, which is one of the Five Points. You don't reject Calvinism by advocating standard Calvinist doctrines. (Incidentally, even if Spurgeon had contradicted himself, that wouldn't salvage Hunt's claims.)


 * If you're going to say Spurgeon changed his mind you'd need proof, and still not say anything as to what Spurgeon said on the occasion we're talking about.  A.J.A. 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've said, this is not the place for such a debate, and I will not engage in it. The fact that it is in debate is enough that a neutral forum such as this needs to treat it as such. You haven't "proven" anything here any more than anyone else has elsewhere. Spurgeon was criticized in his day for not being Calvinistic enough, and it's no different today.
 * http://www.epm.org/articles/spurgeontheology.html
 * http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/122/52.0.html
 * And of course there's the book which pits Spurgeon against "hyper-Calvinists". But since DH believes there is no distinction between Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists, he'd be right to assert, according to his viewpoint, that Spurgeon had trouble reconcilling his Calvinism with his evangelism. --T3rmin 01:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep claiming the neutral one? Would you like to go over your version with a fine-tooth POV comb? Because quoting critics and then saying "however, (refutation)" is pretty blatent bias.


 * I'm quite confident the record shows who has been striving for neutrality (just read a few comments earlier on this page!). You are correct about the possibility of reading bias into conjuctions such as "however". I think you'll notice it does not appear in the current version. The only thing I see is a "but" linking two clauses which are both clearly expressed as claims with no implication of fact or endorsement. Smooth grammar necessitates periodic conjunctions... --T3rmin 06:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And your argument here that Spurgeon wasn't really a Calvinist...


 * I never said that. Spurgeon is obviously a Calvinist. Read it again.--T3rmin 06:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, you say you won't debate, then you bring arguments to support a disputed point. So what do we call that?


 * My point being I won't debate in the article. I don't really intend to on this talk page either, but to illustrate that there is such a debate, I've endulged a bit. Of course there is a distinction of relevance here between debating the issues themselves and debating their application so far as they relate to the article.--T3rmin 06:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then the argument itself: he wasn't a Hyper-Calvinist, and someone refuses to draw a distinction between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism, therefore he wasn't a Calvinist. Never mind that Spurgeon drew a distinction, and the Hyper-Calvinists drew a distinction, Dave Hunt knows better than either party... even though he can't even manage to quote Spurgeon in context, he's the guy to go to. But I'll ignore the merits of the argument, and just point out that whether Hunt's viewpoint is worth the paper it's writen on is, to say no more, highly disputed, and cannot therefore guide an article that's supposed to be writen from an NPOV. A.J.A. 05:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not completely following you there. Anyway, Dave Hunt asserts so-called "hyper-Calvinism" is merely more consistent, more developed Calvinism. Therefore, as a fully-grown Calvinist, Spurgeon fails. In this reasoning, most Calvinists eventually draw a line as to how far they will develop their beliefs, and anything beyond that is given a personal definition of "hyper". Which is why Spurgeon got into trouble with both Calvinists for not being Calvinistic enough and non-Calvinists for being Calvinist at all. Of course to Spurgeon, his Calvinist critics were considered "hyper" and to his critics, Spurgeon was no doubt a lower, underdeveloped Calvinist. It's very much a moving target. But, here I am debating again... This all boils down to: DH has an opinion, and so do you. An encyclopedia should not be a place to present opinions as fact or present only one side of a dispute. I have no objection to the Calvinist concerns being represented in this article, so long as they are worded fairly and the other side is not omitted. --T3rmin 06:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a moving target at all. If you believe the Five Points (Spurgeon did), you're a Calvinist. Amyrauldians count too, but that issue doesn't even come up here (as per my proof that Spurgeon taught limited atonement). Whether Hyper-Calvinists think regular Calvinists are fully developed only matters if you're casting around for excuses for Hunt's mischaracterization of Spurgeon. A.J.A. 07:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you've taken it upon yourself to intersperce your indulgences into my comment. I'll gather them here for reply.


 * Well, logic would say you do, but apparently that isn't a concern here...

You have an odd notion of "logic".


 * I have to apologize for that comment. It was neither gracious, necessary, nor productive.--T3rmin 18:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm quite confident the record shows who has been striving for neutrality (just read a few comments earlier on this page!). You are correct about the possibility of reading bias into conjuctions such as "however".

This, from the person who thinks "have been considered" is biased! At least "have been considered" implies a considerer who or may not be considering rightly. You just drop your "however, (refutation)" without even most tenuous of attributions. It was presented as if setting the matter. And you say it has to be read into it. Incredible! I guess you get a different standard from everyone else, eh?


 * Yes, I do think that construction (not strictly the phrase "have been considered", of course, but the entire sentence) was biased. My reasons have been expressed clearly and I believe are valid. Of course bias is generally "between the lines" and may not always be considered or detected by the originating party. But that's why we're having this discussion, right? --T3rmin 18:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you'll notice it does not appear in the current version.

Yes, and I'll also take credit for that. A.J.A. 07:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. You were correct to do it. My intentions were towards flow, not endorsement, but I see how they could be taken that way. --T3rmin 18:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________

I added some specifics about WLIT's publishing status, and a sentence about the particulars of Calvinist complaints against Hunt (that his knowledge of Reformed theology is skimpy, and that his lack of knowledge about N.T. Greek results in him not being able to respond to Reformed exegesis of N.T. passages). I also added that he was one of the few Christian Fundamentalist authors to warn against Y2K hysteria, and refute various wild claims being made by others.

Jack Brooks 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro/Con section Inappropriate?
Is it really appropriate to have a pro/con section listing various external websites? Most of these entries are of people attacking a various published material - it would likely be more relevant, at least in my opinion, to have these entries made, if absolutely necessary, on the pages about each reference material instead of on this bio page. To a person just visiting the article, it appears very biased, with an empty pro section, and many cons listed... Tharaun (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dave Hunt (Christian apologist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to https://www.thebereancall.org/content/about-dave-hunt-
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229054159/http://www.thebereancall.org/content/about-dave-hunt-0 to http://www.thebereancall.org/content/about-dave-hunt-0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What denomination was Hunt?
Based on his criticism we can be fairly safe concluding he wasn't Catholic, Mormon, nor Calvinist, but that he was a Christian. What denomination? It says he was a preacher - for what Church/Religion? 2601:14A:503:64C0:B0EE:D753:2340:DF22 (talk) [formerly known as ileanadu]
 * He wasn't a "preacher" - he was an apologist; there's distinct difference. I don't believe he was ever ordained, nor had a seminary degree. As to his denomination, there's not a lot of specific information indicating whether he was a member of a denominational church.  Note that within evangelicalism, there are plenty of non-denominational churches (and people) not associated with any specific denomination.  He was raised as Plymouth Brethren, which of course explains his dispensational viewpoint.   Butler Blog   (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)