I would like to see some of Dave Hunt's books added to Logos. I know he will raise the neck hairs on some, but he is certainly worth reading.
If this is done be sure to include Debating Calvinism between Dave Hunt and James White (if anybody has read What Love Is This and found it persuasive in the least, I recommend you also read Debating Calvinism)
I don't know anything about the book or its author. It was interesting to see why the book received "3 stars" on Amazon.
lol I think I think the results show 59 who agree with Hunt doctrinally while 64 do not. Its too bad reviewers don't usually review in these situations based on the quality of the writing and style in which the information was presented
Thanks! This is an issue I plan on wrestling much with in the next couple of months. Currently I'm reading a lot of Edwards and Piper. I wanted to compliment that with a critic of the positions they hold so I'll definitely be looking up these books in the future.
Dave Hunt is a bit more inflammatory than reasonable. A better offering from the non-Calvinist side would be Whosoever Will: http://www.amazon.com/Whosoever-Will-Biblical-Theological-Five-Point-Calvinism/dp/0805464166
It should be very easy to interpret these graph results... The data's radical support of both sides is not an accurate review. How can it be so good for some, and so bad for others? It looks like an "apparent contradiction" -- this is because the subject matter is hotly contested. Therefore, the data is obviously bias.
I am not looking to get into a debate over theology... I am personally in tension over the subject matter.
The majority of my library is made up of reformed fundamentalist. I would like to read more opposing views.
Thanks. I'll add it to my list. One of the things I'm looking most for is the character of those making there cases. For instance, do they display a passion for God as their chief aim or a dislike for the other side. I need to read Edward's book on Freedom of the Will....so much to read....so little time.
It should be very easy to interpret these graph results...
I didn't think it was difficult to interpret. Just funny.
I am personally in tension over the subject matter.
I am too. I think, however, that there are things in life which really are meant to be held in tension. WIth you, I don't want to get into a grand theological debate on the forums here, so suffice it to say I affirm both God's sovereignty and man's free will. There is a tension there that I see in the Scriptures. I have recently been introduced to the "molinist" position, but have not had a chance to research it enough to give an informed opinion.
Ith you, I don't want to get into a grand theological debate on the forums here, so suffice it to say I affirm both God's sovereignty and man's free will.
This is where I have always stood as well. And it may be where I end up. I want to make sure that my being in the middle is because two truths, pulling against my logic, maintains me their rather then it being because one of the "truths" is an error trying to pull me in the wrong direction.
Well, it's obvious from the Amazon reviews, that one side is honestly commenting on the quality of the book, whether the ideas are clearly written, style, and so forth (basically an objective review), while the other is using character assasination and emotion, and in most cases probably hasn't even read the book (since they're completely wrong).
I suppose it should be refreshing to at least see people involved one way or the other.
It looks as though you either love it or you hate it. I'd almost assuredly be in the group which hates it based on the title since I don't think Calvinism misrepresents God (though I do think Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is a gross misrepresentation).
I have recently been introduced to the "molinist" position, but have not had a chance to research it enough to give an informed opinion.
Maybe we need to resurrect the Salvation & Sovereignty suggestion thread. Its a B&H book, so I'm curious if they have plans to release their books on Vyrso. I really hope they're a part of the 20,000 left yet to be released before the end of the year!
Thanks for the suggestion, I just bought this on Kindle. The first few pages look very good.
I also just bought the Dave Hunt's book on paper, which I don't really like to do, but, it wasn't available on Kindle. I wish Logos had both of these resources.
Interesting how no one has suggested John MacArthur's works be counter-balanced with works by Dave Hunt. Usually when Logos publishes a collection of works written by a specific person they do not include other writers. If the request is for "Works of Dave Hunt" a book by James White is out of place. If the request were for the pros & cons of the doctrine of predestination I would expect to see several different authors. Dave Hunt has written many books covering several controversial subjects. If Logos were to counter-balance each of Hunt's books, they would need to secure licensing agreements from about 20 copyright holders before they could start.There are some writers who have enough influence they should be read whether or not one agrees with them. Hunt has certainly stirred up commotion over the past few decades. If his arguments had no persuasiveness at all, there would be no move among the opposing camps to silence himI'd welcome a collection of Dave Hunt's works, as well as Hank Hanegraff's and Jerry Falwell's, and Desmond Tutu's..............
If we are going to start countering every controversial writing may I suggest including James Arminius' writings in the Calvin 500 collection? I would certainly suggest his writings to anyone who finds John Calvin's doctrine the least bit convincing[6]
Oh, and I can't imagine what counter-balancing author's would be included in the Mark Driscoll Collection.
If we are going to start countering every controversial writing may I suggest including James Arminius' writings in the Calvin 500 collection? I would certainly suggest his writings to anyone who finds John Calvin's doctrine the least bit convincing
They can't do that without raising the price of the Calvin 500 collection since I already have it. I've also pre-ordered Arminius under the theory that you should know the enemy.
I would like to see some of Dave Hunt's books added to Logos. I know he will raise the neck hairs on some, but he is certainly worth reading. How about all of them?
I would agree, the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ alone is my major non negotiable. I am willing to look at other perspectives in books.
[Y] Dave Hunt
The data's radical support of both sides is not an accurate review. How can it be so good for some, and so bad for others? It looks like an "apparent contradiction" -- this is because the subject matter is hotly contested.
As a reviewer, may I suggest another answer? Some reviewers judge on writing style, logic, factuality etc. Others judge on "I like it 'cause I agree" - yeah the writing is poor, the facts unverifiable ... etc. An occasionally an author (or fan) will try to brow-beat the reviewer into revising their review. Sometimes integrity is difficult to maintain.
Sometimes integrity is difficult to maintain.
That's why I try to keep it simple and just go by the cost of the book. :-)
I would like to see some of Dave Hunt's books added to Logos. I know he will raise the neck hairs on some, but he is certainly worth reading. How about all of them? If this is done be sure to include Debating Calvinism between Dave Hunt and James White (if anybody has read What Love Is This and found it persuasive in the least, I recommend you also read Debating Calvinism) Interesting how no one has suggested John MacArthur's works be counter-balanced with works by Dave Hunt. Usually when Logos publishes a collection of works written by a specific person they do not include other writers. If the request is for "Works of Dave Hunt" a book by James White is out of place. If the request were for the pros & cons of the doctrine of predestination I would expect to see several different authors. Dave Hunt has written many books covering several controversial subjects. If Logos were to counter-balance each of Hunt's books, they would need to secure licensing agreements from about 20 copyright holders before they could start.
Interesting how no one has suggested John MacArthur's works be counter-balanced with works by Dave Hunt. Usually when Logos publishes a collection of works written by a specific person they do not include other writers. If the request is for "Works of Dave Hunt" a book by James White is out of place. If the request were for the pros & cons of the doctrine of predestination I would expect to see several different authors. Dave Hunt has written many books covering several controversial subjects. If Logos were to counter-balance each of Hunt's books, they would need to secure licensing agreements from about 20 copyright holders before they could start.
Simply saying that if you are recommending an author's work you might also like to read that author in dialog.
I am not suggesting that Logos sell Hunt's book only with the Hunt-White debate. Simply saying that I have read both, and I recommend the book that they authored together. Likewise, I hope Logos publishes a James White collection, and if you agree or disagree with White, you may find it beneficial to find White in dialog with one who disagrees with him.
I agree, I have Calvin 500, Sproul, Piper, Edwards, JI Packer to name a few, but most of my collection is reformed TULIP writters.
Simply saying that if you are recommending an author's work you might also like to read that author in dialog. I am not suggesting that Logos sell Hunt's book only with the Hunt-White debate.
I am not suggesting that Logos sell Hunt's book only with the Hunt-White debate.
I'm sorry if I came across too critical in my post. i had been in my local Bible College bookstore that afternoon and was confronted with disclaimers pasted inside the covers of most books offered for sale. They were warnings that the book did not fully represent the college's doctrinal position so the book was not to be fully trusted.
After pondering what this meant I came up with two observations:
I am very glad Logos offers the opportunity to read many authors in dialogue. My best attempt at having a balanced library is gather everything together under Logos. A Harold Camping collection would be a nice announcement on October 21st, 2011. (I just discovered they are free in PDF, just search for it.)
. A Harold Camping collection would be a nice announcement on October 21st, 2011. (I just discovered they are free in PDF, just search for it.)
[:$][:$][:$][:$][:$]
I haven't read any of Mr. Hunt's books, but I have heard some of his debates / encounters. They're a mess; long on repeating surface-level interpretations of a handful of passages, short on exegesis. I wonder: has Mr. Hunt abandoned his "redacted Hebrew" theory on Acts 13:48 yet? Does he still hold to the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation of same?
Robert,
I think this is just your attempt at a jab. You said you had not read any of his books...[:S]
Last I checked John 3:16 is very clear.
New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Please break this verse down for me?
I haven't read any of Mr. Hunt's books, but I have heard some of his debates / encounters. They're a mess; long on repeating surface-level interpretations of a handful of passages, short on exegesis. I wonder: has Mr. Hunt abandoned his "redacted Hebrew" theory on Acts 13:48 yet? Does he still hold to the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation of same? Robert, I think this is just your attempt at a jab. You said you had not read any of his books... Last I checked John 3:16 is very clear.
I think this is just your attempt at a jab. You said you had not read any of his books...
He clearly stated that he was basing his opinion on what Hunt has stated in debates. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask what was stated in the debates which leads him to this conclusion?
I haven't read any of Mr. Hunt's books, but I have heard some of his debates / encounters. They're a mess; long on repeating surface-level interpretations of a handful of passages, short on exegesis. I wonder: has Mr. Hunt abandoned his "redacted Hebrew" theory on Acts 13:48 yet? Does he still hold to the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation of same? Robert, I think this is just your attempt at a jab. You said you had not read any of his books... Last I checked John 3:16 is very clear. He clearly stated that he was basing his opinion on what Hunt has stated in debates. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask what was stated in the debates which leads him to this conclusion?
No, I don't agree George. Being I was original poster, my post was merely a book suggestion written by Dave Hunt. I wasn't looking for a review on how well he debated.
Nevertheless, his debates can reveal something regarding his thinking and is therefore a valid observation. I'm not sure what Robert was referring to when he spoke of a view of "redacted Hebrew" in Ac 13.48, but it might be interesting. I know of a number of persons who attempt to back-translate sayings in the gospels to a presumed Aramaic or Hebrew original, but I'm not sure how that would work in the Acts passage.
I think this is just your attempt at a jab.
No, actually it was my attempt at participating in a discussion on whether or not Dave Hunt's work is worthy of presentation in Logos. In retrospect, I see it was inevitable that this would evolve into a theological debate on a software forum. I think any further theological input on my part will only contribute to a spiral into an endless series of gainsaying. Consider me self-chastised on that point.
You said you had not read any of his books
Nor have I read anything from Bart Ehrman or Dan Barker, but I have heard them debate, so I have a fairly good idea their degree of respect for the integrity of the Bible and the intelligence of their audience (not very high in both cases). If Mr. Hunt's public pronouncements in debates and speeches differs greatly from what he would publish in a book, then we have a much larger problem here than our disagreement on his theology.
I have heard them debate
Not everyone debates as well as they write or think.
I have a fairly good idea their degree of respect for the integrity of the Bible and the intelligence of their audience (not very high in both cases).
I do not know any of these authors, but there is no need to put people down. If you didn't like the suggestion... don't buy the book!
I think this is just your attempt at a jab. No, actually it was my attempt at participating in a discussion on whether or not Dave Hunt's work is worthy of presentation in Logos. In retrospect, I see it was inevitable that this would evolve into a theological debate on a software forum. I think any further theological input on my part will only contribute to a spiral into an endless series of gainsaying. Consider me self-chastised on that point.
It is the "worthy of presentation" phrase that draws fire. Just because someone is poor at public speaking does not equate to poor scholarship or "less-than-worthy" content. And just because certain people are scholarly in their presentations does not mean they are not a doctrinal twit.
I once sat through a sales demonstration where the speaker spent 20 minutes telling the audience of the sundry benefits of a cold drink of tap water. When he finished there was a mad rush to the water fountains. I also have a pastor friend who is a most excellent Bible teacher yet delivers the most boring sermons I have ever suffered through. While presentation and delivery of the message is important, it is not as important as te content. Dave Hunt is a much better writer than speaker. I have both read his books and watched his debates. (and no, I do not agree with Hunt on everything.)
I do value communication skills. (I went to Paul J Meyer's Success Motivation Institute in Waco in 1978 and learned a bit there.) But when our message is empty all we accomplish is the wasting of time; of ours and our listeners. I do not want to be a great success at selling tap water. I want to deliver the "living water" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is why Logos is important to me. Dave Hunt would be a nice addition to my library.
Would also recommend that Logos add "Chosen But Free" by Norman Geisler.
If you didn't like the suggestion... don't buy the book!
So there.
It is the "worthy of presentation" phrase that draws fire.
Wasn't there just the teeny-weeniest bit of implication in the OP that opinions were being sought? Surely MJD wasn't looking to talk to him/her self.
And isn't there just the slightest tinge of polemics in a subtitle "Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God"? If I wrote a book subtitled "Why Dave Hunt Likes to Drown Puppies", wouldn't I expect a certain amount of edginess in reactions?
But I do appreciate that you didn't shout me down with bold font, like some gaudy KJ Onlier website.
but there is no need to put people down.
and for what it's worth, I was saying that Ehrman and Barker don't show respect for the intelligence of their audience, in addition to not showing respect for the integrity of the Bible.
Sorry Robert, I misunderstood you. I thought you were questioning the intelligence of the authors audience. As I said before, I don't know any of these men.
It is the "worthy of presentation" phrase that draws fire. Wasn't there just the teeny-weeniest bit of implication in the OP that opinions were being sought? Surely MJD wasn't looking to talk to him/her self. And isn't there just the slightest tinge of polemics in a subtitle "Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God"? If I wrote a book subtitled "Why Dave Hunt Likes to Drown Puppies", wouldn't I expect a certain amount of edginess in reactions? But I do appreciate that you didn't shout me down with bold font, like some gaudy KJ Onlier website.
I was simply suggesting a book to be offered on Logos, I prefer all my books in either Logos or Kindle, thus the suggestion. It wasn't available on Kindle either.
The interesting point is that I don't necessarily disagree or agree with Calvinism. Thus, I am trying to read contrasting authors who still believe in Salvation through faith and faith in Christ alone.
One thing that I have noticed is the arrogance that many Calvinist have against those who are not in Calvinism Camp. The sovereignty of God vs the Free will of man is something I am trying to understand, not argue, nor start a theology debate.
Dave Hunt is a bit more inflammatory than reasonable. A better offering from the non-Calvinist side would be Whosoever Will: http://www.amazon.com/Whosoever-Will-Biblical-Theological-Five-Point-Calvinism/dp/0805464166 Would also recommend that Logos add "Chosen But Free" by Norman Geisler.
[Y]
Wasn't there just the teeny-weeniest bit of implication in the OP that opinions were being sought?
Only opinions about Dave Hunt's books, not his speaking ability or "worthiness."
Do you have any idea how many authors we would have to throw out if we started screening them by:
If I wrote a book subtitled "Why Dave Hunt Likes to Drown Puppies", wouldn't I expect a certain amount of edginess in reactions?
Something they learned from Westcott & Hort.
??? I don't know the history - what's this about?
The sovereignty of God vs the Free will of man is something I am trying to understand
A very worthy endeavor indeed. Good luck.
Something they learned from Westcott & Hort. ??? I don't know the history - what's this about?
Hyperbole..... nothing more. I just thought I would give Richard a coupon to dismiss everything I posted by branding myself one of the dogmatic "unworthies" [6]
A better argument would have been against the latest "flavor-of-the-week" translation committee but W&H can't fight back.
not his speaking ability or "worthiness."
I did not mention his speaking ability or personal worthiness. I was referring to the content of his presentation. The "worthiness" aspect was related to the content also. I do not know Dave Hunt. I never brought up any of his academic achievements (or lack thereof) or any other personal aspect. How do these threads get so frayed?
Some Free-Willers would compare Calvinism to putting honey on the end of a .22 rifle and pulling the trigger when the kitty goes to lick it off
Hmm. I haven't heard that one. And while I know you were having a little parallel fun with my hypothetical subtitle, it is historically observable that the anti-Reformed make frequent use of human philosophy, often to the exclusion of clear, didactic Scripture.
Also notable is their use of ad hominem arguments (e.g. "One thing that I have noticed is the arrogance that many Calvinist have...").
I dunno. Some Free-Willers would compare Calvinism to putting honey on the end of a .22 rifle and pulling the trigger when the kitty goes to lick it off.
You should be ashamed of yourself
These discussions will never cease to baffle me. Of course his book is worthy to be part of Logos' offering! It's a book...a theological book...a theological book that many customers would like to buy. What more is there to discuss?
Of course his book is worthy to be part of Logos' offering! It's a book...a theological book...
I think you blew his argument to smithereens. [:)]
(Permission to speak freely is hear-by granted [;)])
I dunno. Some Free-Willers would compare Calvinism to putting honey on the end of a .22 rifle and pulling the trigger when the kitty goes to lick it off. You should be ashamed of yourself
The Gospel message is sweeter than honey to any lost soul. When faced with the honey, the kitty has, you might say, a "bondage of the will."The party holding the .22 rifle has all the sovereignty in my illustration.
Who are we (kittens) to pass judgement on the party holding the rifle? You are making an assumption that all kitties have some intrinsic worth to the gun owner, and are loved by the gun owner. If you read John 3:16 the way Dave Hunt does, I can understand your arrival at that conclusion. If you remove that verse from the Bible, please tell us what shame there is to acknowledge the trigger puller can shoot kittens. Human philosophies would bear out shooting kittens is more humane than drowning puppies.
last point: I said "some Free-Willers would" make that comparison. Other Free-Willers would say God exercised His sovereignty over Calvin's interpretation and created a huge farm full of catnip, milk and honey, then extended a "whosoever will" open invitation to all the kitties in the world. There is no shame in pondering why.
I did not mention his speaking ability or personal worthiness. I was referring to the content of his presentation. The "worthiness" aspect was related to the content also.
You did mention his speaking ability in his debates (and you admitted you have never read the content of any of Hunt's books.) That leaves you with judging Hunt's "worthiness" to be published being based on either Hunt's speaking abilities or on what you have called Hunt's wavering on doctrine or assumed incorrect doctrine for holding to some point Jehovah Witness' believe. No matter what you were trying to say, it comes across as a "jab." I would like to point out both John MacArthur and Mark Driscoll are of the Reformed theological camp. The former publicly criticized the latter's speech presentations, yet Logos publishes both of them.
Some Free-Willers would compare Calvinism to putting honey on the end of a .22 rifle and pulling the trigger when the kitty goes to lick it off Hmm. I haven't heard that one. And while I know you were having a little parallel fun with my hypothetical subtitle, it is historically observable that the anti-Reformed make frequent use of human philosophy, often to the exclusion of clear, didactic Scripture.
It is a local practice. It seems more loving than tossing a flour sack full of rocks and puppies or kitties into the lake of water, .... or fire. Maybe that is why the JWs dispensed with the doctrine of Hell. (Pragmatically, a burlap bag cost more than a .22 shell and the kitty goes out with a toothless grin on his face. [:O])It is also historically observable that both anti-Free Willers and counter-Reformationists are predominantly human in nature. Dave Hunt's book title is couched in a clear scripture that his detractors wish to exclude. I do not wish to squash the centuries-old dialogue on the subject. A great portion of my Logos library is of the Reformed stance. (Calvin 500, Spurgeon collection, 100's more)
I am sorry I don't have any fancy Latin words reply with...[:)]
The truth is still the truth, regardless of what you believe! [Y]
