What Love is this? By Dave Hunt

[whetstone]

Did you read it? If so- did you think Hunt presented his case in a decent manner? This book is supposedly the end-all be-all "refutations" of Calvinism and is strongly promoted at schools such as Pensacola Christian College. Cast your vote.

 

[4His_glory]

Hunt's demonstrated a considerable lack of integrity in writting this book. It's one thing to write a book I don't agree with, its another to be dishonest in that book.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I have the book but I have not read it as of yet. It came highly recommended. Could you give some examples of Hunt's dishonesty as it pertains to this book?

 

[4His_glory]

Sure Hunt claims that John Calvin not once mentioned the love of God in his Institutes, Calvin did several times. Dave Hunt also claims that Charles Spurgeon denined limited attonment, and gives partial quotations out of context to support this claim.

These are but two examples of dishonesty.

http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/6reasonshunt.html

 

[Pastor Larry]

Check out this very through review that is very damning in respect to Hunt's arguments and his methods: http://www.dbts.edu/dbts/journals/Hunt_Review.pdf

 

[whetstone]

Thanks for your votes guys.

 

[Ray Berrian]

I have read it and it is excellent! Mr. Hunt removes the theological veil of deceit and allows the Attributes of God to shine forth with great brightness. Christ can be seen as truly the Savior of the world as John chapter one indicates. Either John wrote the truth in verses 7 and 29 or he told a lie. I contend that God's words still remain the truth in spite of Calvin's upstart religion of Calvinism.

John the Baptist preached that Jesus is 'the Light so all sinners, through Him, might believe.'

For those who study Calvinism, Mr. Hunt has it correct, "What Love Is This?" It clearly is a kind of love that is partial and prejudices His attribute of Divine Justice.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Ray,

You have been confronted enough time with the truth about Hunt's book to know better than to say the things you are saying. You are leaving with little choice but to say you are willfully deceived and thereby deceiving others. Think what you will about CvA; Hunt is an unethical liar. The review above clearly documents it so that there can be no question about his lack of ethics and morality in writing this book.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Whetstone;
I read the book and could not find one lie in it. Though some call Dave Hunt a liar. It does refute Calvinism completely. I have also read Debating Calvinism by Dave Hunt and James White (a well known Calvinist). The thing that amazes me most about the book is how it infuriates the Calvinist. How they did everything they could to stop it's publishing.

In Debating Calvinism Dave uses scripture and James White uses personal insult with very little scripture. Scripture wins every time hands down. Those who insult there opponents in a debate always loose. They know there loosing and that's why they lash out with insults in feeble attempts to defame there opponents.

May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[Ray Berrian]

Some people cherish more their man made theological systems of belief over the written Word of God.

I still believe the Gospel of John 1:7 & 29 trumps the concepts of any Christian thinker.

Each person has one opportunity to obtain the love of the truth. A theological idea, in fact, is just one man's opinion. I am glad, long ago, I learned to love and stand on the truth.

 

[whetstone]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Hi Whetstone;
I read the book and could not find one lie in it. Though some call Dave Hunt a liar. It does refute Calvinism completely. I have also read Debating Calvinism by Dave Hunt and James White (a well known Calvinist). The thing that amazes me most about the book is how it infuriates the Calvinist. How they did everything they could to stop it's publishing.

What infuriates Calvinists is when people are unwilling to address the issue honestly. I have read some very honest and open "refutations" of Calvinism by men such as David Cloud. I don't agree with him- but at least he has been honest enough to give fair and truthfully documented sources. Here is an Arminian who has at least been honest! The Calvinist camp does not have a problem with opposition- let people turn the truth over and over until it cuts them. We DO have a problem when our position is either misrepresented- or 'refuted' by lies. God bless.

Daniel Allen
www.spurgeon.us

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Some people cherish more their man made theological systems of belief over the written Word of God.

I still believe the Gospel of John 1:7 & 29 trumps the concepts of any Christian thinker.

Each person has one opportunity to obtain the love of the truth. A theological idea, in fact, is just one man's opinion. I am glad, long ago, I learned to love and stand on the truth.

Truth declares truth wherever it finds itself facing lies, Ray. Wherever, whatever, and whenever.
You, on the other hand, would lie in trying to present the Calvinists in this board as evil when you say, as you did in another post, that the God they worship has teamed up with the devil.
Jesus never confronted wrong doctrine and wrong practices among the Pharisees by denigrating the God they worshipped though their heart attitudes may have been wrong.
He pointed out error, and spoke the truth.
So, please, spare us from your claims of having truth, and standing up for truth.
I know it is not below your dignity to lie about the opposition.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Whetstone;
Have you read either of Dave Hunts books on Calvinism? If so just what exactly is so dishonest. Please state just exactly what page this dishonesty appears on.
Was it his coments on Michael Servetus?, or the fact that Calvin himself sought to be Pope?. Was it what he said about Calvin?, or was it what he said about Calvinism?.
Calvinist all claim the same thing you've stated although they never present any evidence. Don't tell me about what someone else claims Dave Hunt is. Show me paragraph and sentence of just where he was dishonest. Support your claims please?
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

I read the book and could not find one lie in it

Then you are uninformed. Here's a few examples, from the article above (which you apparently haven't read, since no one having read the article could claim there are not lies in this book). Here's some clear examples of Hunt't unethical tactics, dishonesty, and misunderstanding. And there are 30 pages of examples in this article if you will take the time to honestly read it and interact with it. You can compare the book (use the same edition this author did to get the right page numbers). These are long citations, but necesssary to see just how bad Hunt is.

here's one from pp. 104-05 where Hunt claims Norman Douty believes something that Norman Douty did not believe. Hunt misrepresents the position.

There are clear places where Hunt misrepresents his sources. For example, on p. 19, Hunt claims that “Norman F. Douty lists more than seventy Christian leaders who opposed Calvinism,” when, in fact, Douty’s real claim is that they were advocates of “General Redemption” (i.e., that Christ’s atonement was for all men). This misrepresentation is significant for a number of reasons. First, many of the men that Douty cites actually believe what Hunt rejects. For example, Douty claims that both Augustine and John Calvin denied limited atonement, so Hunt’s citation of Douty ends up with John Calvin and Augustine supposedly rejecting the very things that Hunt himself says they taught. In other words, Hunt is carelessly and worthlessly citing Douty. Second, contrary to the impression left by Hunt, Douty himself tells us that the aim of his book is to set forth “Moderate Calvinism,” and by that he means the kind that “subscribes to only four” of the famous five points.7 So, Hunt completely misrepresents both Douty’s argument and view on the issue of Calvinism.

Here's another from pp. 105-06 where Hunt lies about what Spurgeon believed about the atonement. Part of this quote has been omitted here. In the article you will see that the author actually cites the full quote from Spurgeon rather than the edited part that Hunt quotes. It becomes clear why Hunt only used part of the quote. The part Hunt omitted shows Hunt is wrong.

This same problem surfaces in Hunt’s comments regarding Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Hunt makes the incredible statement that Spurgeon “rejected Limited Atonement” and that “he did so in unequivocal language” (p. 19). Hunt later assures us that “some of what Calvin taught (such as limited atonement) was repugnant to Spurgeon” (p. 35) and goes even so far as to say that Spurgeon “rejected [limited atonement] as heresy” (p. 241). Although Hunt supposedly proves this with a quote from Spurgeon, a simple look at the original source shows that he has misrepresented Spurgeon by omitting words in the middle and at the end of his quotation. ... On the next page after the Hunt quote, Spurgeon writes, “To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice.”

HEre's another from pp. 108-09 where Hunt quote Vance quoting Strong quoting Calvin (tertiary source) claiming that Calvin said something because Vance said that Strong said that Calvin said it. When you read the original source, you find that Hunt's source (Vance) was actually arguing completely against what Hunt was saying. It is a really funny faux pas that can only be the result of abominable research or dishonesty.

That Hunt misrepresents his sources because he fails to understand their point (even if due to carelessness) is further demonstrated through his misuse of one of his favorite writers, Laurence Vance. In attempting to make the case that John Calvin’s view of the atonement “seemed to be ambivalent,” Hunt includes a quote from John Calvin: “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, his blood being shed…for the whole human race” (p. 253). Once again, the endnote indicates that Hunt is quoting a secondary source, Augustus Strong’s Systematic Theology (p. 260). But the same endnote also contains these words, “For proof that this is an authentic quotation, see Vance, op. cit., 467–68.” When one turns to Vance for the “proof” referred to by Hunt, one finds something completely different—Vance argues that the quote is spurious! Instead of proving the validity of the quote, ... Hunt cites Vance for proof of his position when in fact Vance is arguing for the very opposite! This is at the very least evidence of extreme carelessness, but more likely demonstrates the fact that Hunt is more interested in quotes than accuracy.

From pp. 111-12 and this is one of Ray's favorites that Ray has been confronted on. Yet Ray, inexplicably, refuses to acknowledge this. Here, Hunt addresses Acts 13:36 passage about being appointed to eternal life. Ray has apparently not actually read Robertson, and perhaps neither has Hunt. They both deny what Robertson actually says.

It is also informative to notice how Hunt again misuses a quote by A. T. Robertson in order to preserve his case. He does this in two ways. First, in a block quote on p. 211, Hunt inserts an ellipsis to remove words that seem to overturn a portion of his argument (the italicized words are the restored original), “The word ‘ordain’ is not the best translation here. ‘Appointed,’ as Hackett suggests is better. The Jews had voluntarily rejected the word of God….” There is no other plausible reason for omitting these words than the fact that they call into question Hunt’s interpretation of the phrase. He has made up his mind that the Scriptures cannot teach that God appoints some to salvation, so he selectively chooses and presents the evidence in order to make his case. Second, Hunt leaves the reader with the impression that Robertson does not find this text as support for the Calvinistic view of predestination, but this is not correct. Commenting on the same verse of Scripture, Robertson writes, “By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean ‘those who believed were appointed.’ It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal
life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God’s grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord.”17 Robertson’s position is contrary to Hunt’s, yet Hunt selectively and manipulatively quotes Robertson to make it seem as if Robertson agrees.

If you read this article, you will see that Hunt is clearly dishonest, unethical, mirepresentative, and ill-equipped to write this book. Regardless of what one thinks about CvA, Hunt is a horrible resource. If you beleive this book has no lies and distortions, then you are either ignorant or willfully dishonest.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Some people cherish more their man made theological systems of belief over the written Word of God.

This is exactly your problem Ray. You won't listen to Scripture.

I still believe the Gospel of John 1:7 & 29 trumps the concepts of any Christian thinker.

Yes indeed. Which makes one wonder why you continue to depend on your "Christian thinking" rather than on God's word.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Please state just exactly what page this dishonesty appears on.

Was it his coments on Michael Servetus?, or the fact that Calvin himself sought to be Pope?. Was it what he said about Calvin?, or was it what he said about Calvinism?.

Calvinist all claim the same thing you've stated although they never present any evidence. Don't tell me about what someone else claims Dave Hunt is. Show me paragraph and sentence of just where he was dishonest. Support your claims please?

This is dishonest. You say that Calvinists all claim the same thing but never present any evidence. I have directed you above to a very clearly documented article (with the page numbers and examples you ask for) that clearly shows the lies and problems in Hunt's book. For you to claim no Calvinist has presented evidence is dishonest.

 

[gb93433]

Having not read the book and reading a lot of emotional charged baggage I would like to see some actual quotes from the book and rebuttals.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Then read the article I posted. It gives the actual quotes with page numbers, and rebuttals.

Why are people so loathe to actually read the material involved? The problems have been clearly demonstrated. I can understand Ray and Mike not reading it. They don't really want to know the truth about this book. They are too heavily invested in it. But for the rest, just read the article.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Larry;
You can interpret what I say anyway you want to but your comments do not make your interpretation correct.

I have directed you above to a very clearly documented article (with the page numbers and examples you ask for) that clearly shows the lies and problems in Hunt's book.

I still find no lie, but false accusations. Of course Dave Hunt opposes Calvinism. This is why you call him a liar. Whether or not he made a mistake or is mistaken doesn't make the man a liar. You make mistakes Larry and you're not a liar because of them. Just mistaken. Whether or not he is mistaken is something you cannot prove and haven't. The truth of History depends on which history book you read.
All one has to do to find out if Calvin denied limited atonement is read his books. Something I've found most Calvinist have never done. Must be hard to follow a man and not know what he actually said. The truth is Calvin did admit that Salvation is for the entire world and so do many Calvinist.

so Hunt’s citation of Douty ends up with John Calvin and Augustine supposedly rejecting the very things that Hunt himself says they taught

This is what is on page 19 of my book concerning Augustine's and John Calvini's belief.
"It may be trully affirmed that before the dispute between Augustine and Pelagus, There was no question concerning the death of Christ."
Daves coment;
"Whether it was extended to all man kind, or to be confined only to the elect. For the fathers...not a word(that I know of)occurs among them of the exclusion of any person by the decree of God. They agree that it is actually benificail to those only who believe. Yet they everywhere confess that Christ died in behalf of all mankind"
Dave Hunt is admitting this is what he knows of is said.
Your accusation is wrong.
What he said about Douty could most likely be proven where I live alone.

As far as the rest of your claims about Dave hunt. Not one of them holds water on closer inspection. You and this guy who wrote this article would have to know everything ever written by heart of every Calvinist every where. He may have you convinced he knows what he is talking about but I'm not impressed.

This same problem surfaces in Hunt’s comments regarding Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Hunt makes the incredible statement that Spurgeon “rejected Limited Atonement” and that “he did so in unequivocal language”

According to what Spurgeon said at the time this would be true.
"I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds. " by Charles Spurgeon.

HEre's another from pp. 108-09 where Hunt quote Vance quoting Strong quoting Calvin (tertiary source) claiming that Calvin said something because Vance said that Strong said that Calvin said it.

Bologna! No such conversation or quotes in my copy a first edition.

From pp. 111-12 and this is one of Ray's favorites that Ray has been confronted on. Yet Ray, inexplicably, refuses to acknowledge this. Here, Hunt addresses Acts 13:36 passage about being appointed to eternal life. Ray has apparently not actually read Robertson, and perhaps neither has Hunt. They both deny what Robertson actually says.

Wrong again act 13:36 wasn't discussed. Notice I didn't call you a liar but you did make a mistake.
Act 13:36 doesn't say what you claim either. another mistake Too bad we aren't all perfect.

If you read this article, you will see that Hunt is clearly dishonest, unethical, mirepresentative, and ill-equipped to write this book. Regardless of what one thinks about CvA, Hunt is a horrible resource. If you beleive this book has no lies and distortions, then you are either ignorant or willfully dishonest.

My goodness Larry I still disagree with you. You are simply mistaken.

May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

Mike, I will respond more in depth later perhaps, but it is obvious that you are willfully deceived. You make no sense. The plain honest truth has been shown and the proof is there for you to look at. You unwilliingness to look at it speaks volumes, and it does not speak well.