Talk:Dave Hunt (Christian apologist)

message: 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)
thread_title: Violates Policy

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikipedia Policy

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Fact versus Opinion

message: "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)
thread_title: The following statement are simple fact

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The following statements are opinion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pro/Con section Inappropriate? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What denomination was Hunt?