Talk:R. C. Sproul
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
How are Dr. Sproul's influences determined? It's unclear how a Calvinist/Reformed theologian is influenced by Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. If he is, in fact, influenced, in what ways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjwilson (talk • contribs) 18:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see at least a mention of Dr. Sproul's Denominational affiliation. The article does mention his support of Calvinism and he seems to be involved with primarily Presbyterian Universities, but it would be informative to note his specific denominational affiliation (i.e. if, indeed he is Presbyterian, which branch?). William
- I attempted to clarify. He is ordained in the PCA, though he isn't currently ministering there. --Flex 16:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be on a page about Jr. not Sr.? On January 26th, 2006, a declaratory judgement from Kenneth Talbot, moderator of Westminster presbytery of which R.C. Sproul, Jr. was a member, stated that R.C. Sproul, Jr. and three of his elders were deposed of office on various charges 1. The entire document can be found for reference here 2
- Agreed. Since such a page doesn't exist, I deleted it. --Flex 16:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- An anon at 188.8.131.52 has twice added information about RC Sproul, Jr. being defrocked to this article, and the second time, s/he deleted my non-trivial edits. It appears that the rest of us agree that that information belongs in an article about Sproul Jr., not Sr. Since none exists but if that information belongs here in the first place (IMHO, it seems more like gossip at this point than encyclopedic content), there are two choices: leave it out or create a page for Jr. Thoughts? --Flex 18:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
1) Since there is now a separate page for R.C. Sproul Jr., any info on him beyond "Sproul's son, Dr. R. C. Sproul, Jr., is also a theologian" seems tangential to this article. If it remains, "Meadowview, Virginia" should be changed to "the Bristol, Virginia, area," (per the center's mailing address) as the center is no longer located in Meadowview.
2) Why the commas in "an American, Calvinist theologian, and pastor"? Surely "American" is modifying both "Calvinist theologian" and "pastor."
3) Is there any consensus on whether/when to use "Calvinist" v. "Reformed"? My instinct here would be to go with "Reformed" but I can't defend that beyond my own intuition.
Thanks in advance for feedback. Kyriosity 05:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re 1 and 2: be bold and make it so! :-) Re 3: "Reformed" is probably better as far as terminology goes, but (perhaps confusingly) Reformed redirects to Reformed churches while Calvinist redirects to Calvinism. Some would make a distinction between Calvinist and Reformed Christians (cf. the comments by Jim Ellis at Talk:Reformed Baptist#John Piper), but I don't think there's a strong consensus on the matter. I'd like to find a reliable source that adequately distinguishes these things (any ideas?). --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, contrary to my character, I was brave and made the first two changes. Considering the linkage issues, "Calvinist" is probably better than "Reformed" here. Kyriosity 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
4) This is a pretty minor issue... but I feel that the picture of Sproul on this page is pretty bad. I'm not sure exactly why, but it just doesn't look like him. Its a bad picture. Anyway, this isn't earthshaking, I know, but I thought I'd mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Calvinism vs Reformed
I beleive Reformed is the better term. Reformed is the broadest of the two terms. Calvinist is a narrower term. Sproul is Presbyterian by denomination which historicly traces back to the REFORMATION of the Catholic Church, hence the term Reformed. Calvinism is a major school of theology within the Reformation Movement. One does not have to be Calvinistic to belong to the Reformed Movement. Although, one can not be Calvinistic in theological thought and not imply Reformation of the Catholic Church as Calvin denied Papal Authority lerafe 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Several anons have said that Sproul is an evidentialist when it comes to apologetics. Sproul clearly starts with Thomism, but the question is whether he also accepts evidentialist arguments. I seem to recall him saying that evidentialists give away the ship by making arguments that only yield the conclusion that God probably exists. His Thomistic arguments, on the other hand, give certainty if one assents to their premises. Thoughts? Citations? --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone recently added a link to a site where Dr. Sproul's sermons can be downloaded. It was reverted with a notation about its being a "spamlink." I don't think the text included with the link was worded as well as might be, but I don't see why the link itself should be considered spam. Kyriosity (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- The anonymous editor who added the link added similar links to a number of other pages in a very short period of time. Taken as a group, the edits appeared intended to promote the site and not to add resources to Wikipedia entries. That the anonymous editor didn't respond to warnings and instead wordlessly reinstated the edits contributed further to the impression that they were spamming the site. I've no objection to an established editor re-adding the link in good faith. Dppowell (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- A self-publishing site for sermons would be great if we were here to promote this person's views, but we're not. Links are there to support our content, and links to that site really don't do that. Such links do more for the subject than for the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how it would be any different than posting a link to the subject's personal or organizational website, which are also self-published. If I want to find out more about a subject, links to his writing, lectures, sermons, etc. would seem useful to me. Kyriosity (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- sermonaudio.com has been banned from Wikipedia as a spam link. I have requested that it be removed from the banned list. Will report back on what I learn. Kyriosity (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Dr. RC Sproul, Sr. Headshot.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Dr. RC Sproul, Sr. Headshot.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
In the quote, "Sproul's work The Holiness of God is considered a modern classic on the subject of God's character" wouldn't "is considered a modern classic" be weasel words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)