Revision as of 09:53, 26 January 2006

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)

Your advertisment for Dave Hunt's and his false teaching regarding Calvinism and both you and his lies and misrepresentation's of Calvinism are taken note of by God Himself and you will both have to give an account to God on Judgment Day. You have been warned of your sinful wickedness. Repent. Removing links to critiques of Hunt's falsehoods will not help you, I am most pleased I am not in your shoes. Why do you worship Dave Hunt? He is only a sinner like you and me. He never showed anything wrong about Calvinism, Dave Hunt is a liar. Hunt misquotes and distorts the truth about Calvinism and so do you. This comment is false and misleading, and Dave Hunt proved and showed nothing except his ignorance regarding the truth of Calvinism: "However, Hunt makes direct use of Calvinistic sources and maintains he is addressing the true nature and logical ends of Calvinism" Hunt twists and distorts and lies about Calvinistic sources. Read all the links I posted including the ones you took upon yourself to delete, where they show how Hunt twists and distorts the truth, you wicked person. Fides Viva 23:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the linked articles

See if they tell the truth about Dave Hunt or not. See where he misrepresents and tells lies about Calvinism.You are lying about me. I did not do all of the article and I am not mean-spirited. Check the log before you make anymore false accusations against my integrity. I am warning people that Dave Hunt is wrong, terribly wrong. What is "mean-spirited" about that? The articles and essays that critique Dave Hunts's falsehoods are true. More links exposing Dave Hunt's awful error of attacking other believers the better. Dave Hunt is the one that is mean-spirited and so are you, for pouncing on me like a bat out of hell. You both need to seriously repent! Fides Viva 07:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Policy

Fides Viva, I would refer you to Five_pillars and Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages is a repository for information, not opinions. --T3rmin 05:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Daven Hunt is a liar

and a twister and distorter of the truth of Calvinism. He will have to face God for that. I have read two of his books: "The Seduction of Christianity" and Beyond Seduction" years ago and they were helpful, now I have nothing but contempt for them and will never ever read another book by him again, unless he repents and recants his atrocious book "What Love Is This", because of his blatant misrepresentation of Calvinism (as most do), even the direct sources he quotes from he twists and distorts and the logical conclusions of Calvinism by Dave Hunt are wrong. He makes the claim in another book that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and says the the Bible says so. That is another lie. Even though the Roman Catholic Church may be the Whore of Babylon, that shoe could fit any apostate churches foot, including Dave Hunt's. The Bible does not say that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. Dave Hunt used sloppy eisegesis there. Hunt has erred grievously and is unrepentant in his pride and arrogance, I have no time for his teachings at all now. And tell as many as I can to be wary of Dave Hunt. Your article about Dave Hunt is not unbiased, you are praising the man as if he could do no wrong. I am only trying set the record straight about Dave Hunt's lies and distortions. You need to broaden your research about Dave Hunt and stop thinking he is right, when he is actually radically wrong.

BTW, how can the reporting of facts and putting links to articles and essays that expose Dave Hunt's falsehood be biased, or not a NPOV? I am presenting the truth plainly as I can. That is all. Dave Hunt gets away with falsehoods, why? If Dave Hunt has lied, and he has, shouldn't that be revealed? Or is truth unimportant on Misplaced Pages? You want articles about liars like Dave Hunt on Misplaced Pages instead? Has Misplaced Pages turned into a bunch of lies?

Five_pillars and Misplaced Pages is not a Soapbox. <<< This means zilch to me if you are going to defend liars and distorters of the truth like Dave Hunt and give him glowing reports about what he has done and that is what your edits do. It will mean absolutely nothing, 0, on Judgment Day. Dave Hunt incorrectly and wrongfully attacks Calvinism. He is a man that hates being corrected and whines when his errors are exposed. He has done a lot of harm and damage. Fides Viva 08:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fact versus Opinion

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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'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?

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)

Calvinism proven. For good. Really.

Scripture reveals that God's will is effective and He is sovereign in all things and that man is free and responsible for all his actions. ~ Randy Alcorn <<<

Where does it say in the Scriptures that man is free prior to the new birth, regeneration, born again? The Scriptures say, man is a slave, a slave to sin. A slave is not free until he is set free by the Master! Randy Alcorn, like many professing Christians, is wrong. Prior to the new birth, man is dead, DEAD, in his trespasses and sins? What can a dead man do to set himself free from the chains of sin and death? NOTHING! Prior to the new birth, we have the moral responsibilty and accountability for our actions and to obey God but we do not have the ability to do so.

Bondage & Liberation of the Will

Is the Will Free by Nature or by Grace? (Updated 12.16.05) by John Hendryx

Some persons may reason that if the will is voluntarily choosing something, then it is free. But when we speak of freedom of the will we need to ask, freedom relative to what? Historically speaking, Biblical scholars have understood a "free will" to be one which has in its power the moral ability to choose good or evil. So when we ask whether man has a free will we are asking if his will is free (or in bondage) relative to sin and evil. In this respect, of course, the will is not free because through man’s innate wickedness, due to the fall, he is of necessity driven to what is evil, that is, unable to do any redemptive good (Rom 8:7) . And if a choice to do evil is made out of necessity, then it is not free because it cannot choose otherwise. Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, the natural person of uncircumcised heart is stiffnecked and will refuse to obey the commandments of the law and the gospel. And if the natural man chooses to sin of necessity, there is no sense in which he is free that ultimately matters to God. All choices we make are ethical ones, since we either glorify God in them or we do not, and God holds us accountable for these choices. And because God holds us accountable for every choice and thought, the ethical nature of each choice is of primary concern in determining whether the will is free or not.

Some may doubt the very idea that every choice made by an unbeliever is evil of necessity. But consider that an unbeliever's many "good works", even though in many ways may indeed correspond to God's commands, are not well pleasing to God when weighed against His ultimate criteria and standard of perfection. The love of God and His law is not the unregenerate man's deepest animating motive and principle, so it does not earn him the right to redemptive blessings from a holy God. Bad behavior itself, however, is really only a symptom of a much greater core concern. The natural man chooses/wills only what that inner principle desires most. But if the acts of his will are not determined by his internal nature, as libertarians claim, then in what sense can it be said that those decisions are the results of a decision of the person himself? So any idea of a neutral will is absurd since our will is always driven by its moral nature which direct our desires. Jesus said, "a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bad fruit." Thus, the nature of the tree determines the kind of fruit it produces. Only by making the tree good, Jesus says, will the fruit be good. In other words, unless Jesus redeems us from the bondage to sin (Rom 6; 2 Tim 2:25), we have no hope in the world to make any right (redemptive) choice, including believing the gospel (see John 6:65). Again, in what sense are we in bondage (slaves) to sin if not by our affections or wills? Our affections and desires drive the choices we make binding our will over to certain choices. Jesus said to Nicodemus,

"...men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light ..." John 3:19-20 (emphasis mine) More....

I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, "You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself." My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will. ~ C.H SPURGEON

And Spurgeon again illustrates his inconsistency. He comes to the pulpit (present continuous tense) in the hope that that God "WILL lay hold of" (future tense) when destinies have been irrevocably determined in eternity past? He should have stayed in bed. --T3rmin 04:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What Do Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism Share in Common? Quote: There is something that may be of interest to you that both of these positions, who doctrinally oppose traditional Calvinism, share in common. Hyper-Calvinists and Arminians both erroneously argue that sinners cannot be required to do what they are not able to do. Hyper-Calvinists will argue that ability belongs to the elect so we must first find out who they are and preach only to them only. Arminianism, on the other hand, believes that since God commands all men to believe the gospel, we must, therefore, have the natural ability to do so. Both positions are reading into the text, since responsibility does not necessarily imply moral ability. Statements in the Scripture like "If thou art willing" and "whosoever believes”,” choose life" are clearly in the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood. A grammarian would explain that this is a conditional statement that asserts nothing indicatively. What the Scriptures say we "ought" to do does not necessarily imply what we "can" do. The Ten Commandments, likewise, speak of what we ought to do but they do not imply that we have the moral ability to carry them out. The law of God was given so that we would be stripped of having any hope from ourselves. Even faith itself is a divine command (1 John 3:23) that we cannot fulfill without the application of God's regenerative grace by the Holy Spirit (John 6:63-65). But we nonetheless preach the gospel because the gospel contains within it the "seed" of which the Holy Spirit "germinates", so to speak, to bring His people to life. He supernaturally enables us and illumines our understanding so we come out of our darkness, look away from ourselves to Christ alone for salvation. 1 Thessalonians 1:5 reads, "...for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction." (Also see James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, 25). Fides Viva 02:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Now I see the light... Because I base all of my theology on Misplaced Pages discussion pages... --T3rmin 04:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You might as well, since you're already not basing it in Scripture. A.J.A. 07:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

SPAM FILTER

--- T3rmin <<< Are you up to ungodly vanalism? >>> Did you have a spam filter put on to James Whites article linked in this section in the article exposing Hunt's misrepresentations? Which, in your latest edit, you removed. Why? Why do you keep defending Dave Hunt's lies? Why do you keep deleting truth? Why change this section back to your biased POV of Dave Hunt in the article? Are you being a sneaky devil? I cannot see you but God does. >>>

Hunt addressed Calvinism in a book called What Love is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God, published in 2002 and revised in 2004, which became one of his most controversial works. According to Calvinists, the book is inaccurate and misrepresents Calvinism. For example, Hunt said that Calvinist Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon "unequivocally" denied limited atonement, but Calvinists have quoted Spurgeon's statements in support of limited atonement, which in some cases were omited by Hunt from quotes which he claimed showed Spurgeon's opposition to limited atonement. <<< Why is there a spam filter on????? >>> http://aomin.org <<<

Which you changed to this >>>> Hunt addressed Calvinism in a book called What Love is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God, published in 2002 and revised in 2004, which became one of his most controversial works. According to Calvinists, the book is inaccurate and misrepresents Calvinism, but Hunt asserts he is rather addressing its true nature and logical ends. His direct use of Calvinistic sources, particularly Charles Spurgeon, is disputed by Calvinists, who claim misrepresetation and selective quoting.

Hunt does not address the "true" nature of 'Calvinism" because he does NOT know what the true nature of Calvinism is, which is the absolute sovereignity of God in all things and without God we would all be cast into the lake of fire, which every single human being deserves including you and Dave Hunt, nor does Hunt know Calvinism's "logical" ends because he has poured his own meanings into them and tells everyone he is right and all Calvinist's are wrong. He is the expert on all things Calvinism isn't he? Ha! So are you by the looks of it, eh? You get ALL your theology from Dave Hunt's stuff, eh? Dave Hunt is the wisest clearest cleverest knowledgable theologian alive today, huh? Fides Viva 09:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)