Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:05, 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:

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.