Talk:Five points of Calvinism

Started

I started this article pretty much by taking a piece from the Calvinism page. This article still needs some work to be a proper "stand alone" article but I felt that the topic was important enough to merit a page of its own. KHM03 14:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about Target Audience

First and foremost, the quotations (as per the copyright and usage terms of just about all Biblical translations) must state the translation from which they come. This is not just for copyright reasons, it would be useful for someone studying the subject.
Second, almost half of these quotations could (and may very well be) used by schools of Arminian thought in defense of their own positions. This gets into theology, an area of which I have little expertise, so I've not the position to comment more about it. I think it would be pertinent to at least mention this.
These articles must not be written solely for the purposes of the faithful, but rather for usefulness to someone who is unfamiliar or unbelieving. Bearing this in mind, the article should probably be reworded in places to improve the ability for non-believers to understand it. An example from Unconditional election: "God's choice from eternity, of whom He will bring to Himself, is not based on foreseen virtue, merit or faith in the persons He chooses but rather, is unconditionally grounded in His own mercy." This will make little or no sense to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter. My concern first lies with the use of capitalized prepositions. From a perspective of showing respect to a (common, but not universal) convention of the faith, this makes sense (akin to not spelling out the name of the deity on articles related to Judaism). However, from the perspective of neutrality, this is inherently biased. Someone who does not believe in monotheism (meaning both belief in higher power and belief in one god) will find this offensive and/or contrary to their ability to read the article. My second concern lies with the wording. "[...] of whom He will bring to Himself..." should probably be re-worded, as it may not be clear what bringing to Himself means. "[...] in His own mercy" will not make sense to a non-believer. This is, however, a shaky point, and one I do not emphasize too strenuously. In this way, it shows respect for and reflects the beliefs of the faithful as they believe them. My concern is its usefulness to those who do not believe and/or do not have experience with the matter.
It may not be prudent to quote the Bible at all. This is my least strenuous concern, not because it is not a concern, but only because I intend to conjure discussion on the subject, not malevolence or harsh action. I say this not to offend the faithful, but the article should be written from the perspective of presenting the faith and the arguments behind it (definite gray area), not defending it or proving a point to Arminians and followers of other schools of thought. Maybe just the references should be listed, allowing others to look up the passages themselves (this follows with WP's no source material policy, among others—see WP:NOT).

I will not make any changes until at least some discussion occurs on the topic. I do not want to offend those who believe, but WP is an institution whose target audience is everyone. Discussion of religion is important and necessary, but it needs to be (as close as we can get to) neutral.—Kbolino 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one have no problem with any of your suggestions. From a general Wikipedia perspective, and striving for a more encyclopedic tone, I would agree with omitting the Bible quotes altogether. More general wording for the layman should also be welcome. Just my $0.02. Jim Ellis 14:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Bible quotes used...which do reinforce Arminian theology! Nothing wrong with that! ;) KHM03 14:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you smokin' this morning?? Jim Ellis 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added "See Also"

I added a "see also" section and three links.

I also wanted to add my $0.02 and say that, as one who does not share the same doctrines, I wish to see this page not changed substantially. I believe that it is concise, helpful, non-judgemental, and non-argumentative. The goal of Wikipedia is not to avoid opinions entirely, but to share facts about opinions. See various articles on media bias, American politics, even history, and you'll find many opinions expressed. The key, however, is that the material (1) not be original (i.e. the writer presents material only as evidence of an opinion that some significent person or group holds) and (2) not present bias. I don't see this page as being biased...and I disagree with much of it. And it's certainly not original material.

I also vote to keep the Bible verses. If a Wiki user that does not hold similar convictions stumbles upon this page - whether Arminian or non-Christian - they have very clear references to find further information.

David Schroder 18:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

I deleted the quotations and argumentation that 71.205.192.51 added to this page. It should go to the sub-page (e.g., limited atonement), if it belongs in the Wikipedia at all. In particular, I deleted the quote from Calvin's commentary on John 1:29, which 71.205.192.51 claims contradicts the doctrine of limited atonement. Reading the rest of the sentence, it is clear it does not refer to that doctrine but to the universal reach of the atonement to all races (which neither Calvinists nor Arminians dispute): "And when he says, the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone."[1] --Flex 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering: how is this entry neutral if it only presents the minority view. Most denominations of the Christo-Messianic faith do not employ the allegorical hermeneutic that one must in order to align oneself with the TULIP doctrine. If a counter-view isn't allowed, where is the neutrality here? Scholars like Martin Luther and Norman Douty would certainly be considered relevant to the presentation. Amen? --71.205.192.51 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]