Dave Hunt

[Arial]

That's all fine and good, but part of my question involves Hunt's other works, are they decent or not? Do you dismiss his contributions to other areas in Christian history and thought? Do you believe he was saved? How can he be saved, an old man, and disagree with the doctrines of grace and Calvinism? I want to have more information.

If you want more information you need to offer more information. Your question and your requests are so broad, covering potentially a whole library of one person's writings, which potentially no one has read or only some things, that there is no room to complain that you aren't getting what you want. Be specific.

And why are you yourself judging whether another is saved and asking others to do the same. How do we know what he says about the doctrines of grace and Calvinism if you don't present that? (With contextual quotes not paraphrasing what you think he means?

 

[His clay]

That's all fine and good, but part of my question involves Hunt's other works, are they decent or not? Do you dismiss his contributions to other areas in Christian history and thought? Do you believe he was saved? How can he be saved, an old man, and disagree with the doctrines of grace and Calvinism? I want to have more information.

I don't think this disqualifies his other books. His books need to be evaluated separately/on an individual basis.

I cannot answer the question of his salvation, for I do not have that kind of knowledge.

How can he disagree with Calvinism, while being old? The title of "What Love Is This" spells out what I think is his main objection (but he has quite a few objections, so my use of the word "main" does not mean "only"). He disagrees with particular love or selective love. For him, Calvinism displays a man-made system where God's love is truncated and unbiblical. He believes the Bible teaches that God's saving love is for everyone, and He is not a respecter of persons. In short, he believes that Calvinism is an attack upon the biblical portrait of God's love.

While I disagree with the above, and find it fundamentally flawed, my goal was to try my best to accurately represent his main reason for being against Calvinism.

If you really want more information, I'll provide a link to a pdf of the journal article that critiques the book "What Love Is This".

What Love is This Review Article - Doran.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[Arial]

Dismissive posts will not be responded to. Unless there is communication forthcoming that is kind.

Are you typing on a phone? Most people know it is ARMINIAN in spelling.

Sorry if that sounds bad, but that kind of thing irritates me.

 

[His clay]

If you want more information you need to offer more information. Your question and your requests are so broad, covering potentially a whole library of one person's writings, which potentially no one has read or only some things, that there is no room to complain that you aren't getting what you want. Be specific.

And why are you yourself judging whether another is saved and asking others to do the same. How do we know what he says about the doctrines of grace and Calvinism if you don't present that? (With contextual quotes not paraphrasing what you think he means?

In fairness toward Dave_Regenerated, I did write something that was poorly communicated. I'll quote myself.

"In short, Hunt comes across as exceptionally caustic and hateful towards Calvinists, and his misrepresentations seem to be intentional at times. If you want to read non-Calvinist literature, Hunt is not a good example of non-Calvinist scholarship. So I would recommend reading something else."

I could have stated this better. I was intending it to be particular to Hunt's anti-Calvinist writings. However, I wrote in a way that communicated a very general scope. Hunt's other works need to be evaluated separately from his anti-Calvinist writings. So my scholarship comment needs to be more narrow and focused upon His anti-Calvinist writings.

I apologize for my misscommunication. It was not intentional. Hopefully, I have now clarified things better.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Well, I cannot stay at this website any more because of [edit by mod] I don't want to be a Christian if she is an example of what a Christian is.

Bye

 

[ReverendRV]

Obviously there is so much material, he wrote a 700 page book on it. How could I possibly quote all that? I would also have to go back and listen or read just to produce a quote and that probably wouldn't go very far anyway.

I don't know what he says about Calvinism, and why he thinks he has Positive Reasons to rebuke Calvinism; but I assume I could give good responses to his objections...

If I knew what the Objections are...

 

[ReverendRV]

Even though I’m no longer a Calvinist he makes Leighton seem kind. He is like toml

I wouldn't like his Apology then. That approach is entirely one sided; and if Hunt were here, I probably would over moderate him...

 

[ReverendRV]

I don't think this disqualifies his other books. His books need to be evaluated separately/on an individual basis.

I cannot answer the question of his salvation, for I do not have that kind of knowledge.

How can he disagree with Calvinism, while being old? The title of "What Love Is This" spells out what I think is his main objection (but he has quite a few objections, so my use of the word "main" does not mean "only"). He disagrees with particular love or selective love. For him, Calvinism displays a man-made system where God's love is truncated and unbiblical. He believes the Bible teaches that God's saving love is for everyone, and He is not a respecter of persons. In short, he believes that Calvinism is an attack upon the biblical portrait of God's love.

While I disagree with the above, and find it fundamentally flawed, my goal was to try my best to accurately represent his main reason for being against Calvinism.

If you really want more information, I'll provide a link to a pdf of the journal article that critiques the book "What Love Is This".

What Love is This Review Article - Doran.pdf

drive.google.com

When I found out the Book title, that was my first thought too; he probably uses the Love of God as his Prime Hermeneutic, instead of Sola Scriptura as his Prime Hermeneutic. If someone like Hunt really wants to change the Calvinist, here is the Secret; find a way to do so that includes All Scripture being good for Arminianism, and bad for Calvinism...

 

[Reformedguy]

I hate to word things this way, but I can't avoid a true description even if it is unflattering. Hunt is in the category of rabid anti-Calvinists. For whatever reason(s) Hunt views Calvinists in an extremely bad light. His research is extremely poor and rushed. His sourcing has extreme problems (missing primary sources, misses the context of the quotes he provides/quote mining, biased secondary sourcing, failure to properly cite at times). He makes anachronistic historical arguments (e.g. Augustine was a RC). He has very poor exegetical skills.

I did read some of What Love Is This. I've read a journal article that points out the serious shortcoming of the book. I've read the debate book where James White and Hunt argue, and Hunt gets massacred exegetically.

In short, Hunt comes across as exceptionally caustic and hateful towards Calvinists, and his misrepresentations seem to be intentional at times. If you want to read non-Calvinist literature, Hunt is not a good example of non-Calvinist scholarship. So I would recommend reading something else.

Very similar to Norm Geisler I would say.

 

[Arial]

Brother, we don't want to see you leave. I've enjoyed your posts. Maybe take a little time off, but come back and see us my friend!

Even though the original post by Dave_regenerated was evidently deleted what he said about me still exists in post #28. That needs to go too.

 

[Arial]

Maybe you should apologize to him and say "Sorry you took my posts that way?" That was your advice to a another in situations you thought were similar.

Just an observation.

We all like to see the advice of others put into practice by those who like to give it. Makes for a good example.

There really isn't any other way to take it. It is pretty straightforward, no ambiguity at all. But--- as they say. Your the boss.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Hmmm. So, like I said, it's a similar situation in which you took the post in a completely wrong manner and made an unnecessary fracas out of it. Then wanted an apology too.

I think it's funny how things like that come around. Law of sowing and reaping maybe?

Nope. Just making certain that the way some want to be treated is how they would treat others. But that's like pulling teeth obviously.

Perhaps giving an apology to him for taking your posts "wrong" would help the matter, and show some Christian love?

I'd hate to see the guy leave. I empathize with him, I had a brother like him. Maybe you should consider that?

That person is simply just argumentative. Not worth trying to communicate with at all. I see a lot of this kind of behaviour on the internet. It's such a shame because in real life they would probably be okay. But I guess the internet brings the worst out in them.

 

[Eleanor]

That person is simply just argumentative. Not worth trying to communicate with at all. I see a lot of this kind of behaviour on the internet. It's such a shame because in real life they would probably be okay. But I guess the internet brings the worst out in them.

Some folks are just defensive.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

I did read some of What Love Is This. I've read a journal article that points out the serious shortcoming of the book. I've read the debate book where James White and Hunt argue, and Hunt gets massacred exegetically.

The James White / Dave Hunt discussions and book are your best resources on this topic.

Here is part one of three in a response by James White too Dave Hunt about 5 years ago.

Here is a book produced by both men.