From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Calvinism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Religion  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Quotations 2[edit]

This article is little more than a long string of quotations. That is not ok on Wikipedia accoding to WP:LONGQUOTE. That is why I tagged it, not becuase of concern with the quality of the primary sources. The problem is this is not much more than primary sources. This was pointed out before (Talk:Hyper-Calvinism#Quotations), but the article seems to have gotten worse. Novaseminary (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To avoid an essay or personal reflection appearance, much of the article is referenced to sources. But, the mere Quotes can use some in-line review to avoid a string of quotes appearance.-- (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As of now the article is cleaned up from the former "long string of quotations" appearance. Blessings66.215.216.111 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


The result was to remove the "Perjoratives" category. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I removed the Pejorative tag until someone is actually able to supply a source that indicates that this title is pejorative in nature. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A good article to read on this subject is which gives a very clear technical definition of what Hyper-Calvinism is, and notes that we should keep it distinct from the term "Calvinism" ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is both a "technical" or academic meaning and a "common" meaning. As used commonly, it is a pejorative. Theopedia: "The prefix 'hyper' may be used generically to refer to anything that is considered 'extreme' or which goes beyond the accepted norm. There is therefore a sense in which one may refer to Calvinistic views regarded as going beyond normal Calvinism as 'hyper.' This non-technical use, usually as a pejorative term, has been applied to a variety of theological positions which fall outside mainstream Calvinism ..."Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Theopedia sure is WP:RS... oh, wait... no it isn't. The technical use is as follows (From an actual WP:RS)

In my opinion, we have successfully closed on a clear technical definition of hyper-Calvinism. Simply stated, it consists of two fundamental errors: a denial of duty-faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel.

When we use it simply to mean "REALLY REALLY CALVINIST," That is a pejorative... however, just because something CAN be a pejorative does not mean that it IS a pejorative in all contexts. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Outside a fairly narrow group of academic writings, it's primary usage in the world is pejorative. (Kind of like "dipshit". It can technically be used very narrowly to mean something actually dipped in feces, but generally that's not how it's used. I'm not suggesting a parallel between the two concepts. I'm just providing an example of the overwhelming pejorative sense compared to a technical definition.) Just sayin'. There are real-world usages out there. If WP wants to limit itself to the technical definition, that's another matter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You better go get on Conversion Therapy's case too. They just decided that "Pray the Gay Away" is a legitimate term to use... and that it is okay to call it a pseudo-science. There are all sorts of other cases that are MUCH more significant. This is a case of CLEAR theological distinction... why would we use it in any sense other than the technical term. This is an encyclopedia... not urban dictionary. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The Ellis article you cite acknowledges the real-world usage of the term in its very first sentence: "Hyper-Calvinism is a term of derision that today is often used to negatively label anyone with a strong theological view of God's sovereignty in the affairs of men." One reason I would say we would not use it is that those to whom it is applied rarely self-identify with the term. It is a term invented and, for the most part, applied, by its opponents. Anyway, I'm interested in what other editors think about the issue. (I see the issue has arisen before, see above.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, as I said, the recent precedent that was set in Conversion therapy was that if WP:RS uses the term, even if it is critical or as an opponent... it should be reflected in the article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the comparison is imprecise. The article Conversion therapy is not named Pray away the gay. Here, the name of the article is the usually-pejorative term. I am not arguing the term should not be used in the article or even that the article be named what it is named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually... the article is called that. If you type "Pray the Gay Away" into Wikipedia... you get "Conversion Therapy." They are equating the two. Either way, the point stands... when a WP:RS applies a term to a subject... that term (critical, derisive, or pejorative may it be) should be used in the article. Hence why "Pseudo-Science" was deemed acceptable in the Conversion therapy article... those deemed experts said it is a Pseudo-Science... so despite the fact that those engaged in it consider it to be an actual science... Pseudo-Science is in the leed. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Pray away the gay is a redirect to Conversion therapy, which is what I meant. The article is not named "Pray away the gay". Redirects and article names are not of equivalent status in WP, and users spend inordinate amounts of time discussing what specific article names should actually be. Anyway, I'm not sure of the issue's relevance here though because as I said above, I am not arguing the term should not be used in the article or even that the article be named what it is named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Right, you're just saying that we shouldn't use the term to classify people who fit the description that the article describes... ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
As a category for BLPs and biographies, no. But that's a different issue than the one you've raised here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Either it is a legitimate label to be used, or it is not. Which is it?ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't see it in those either/or terms. It's fine to have an article about the term; but because the term has a popular pejorative meaning, I don't agree with applying it via categories to BLPs and other biographies. I think we should see what others think, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • IMO the article should not be categorised as 'pejorative' under any circumstances. This is categorisation by a property of the name of the article; and the article could be renamed to 'High Calvinism' or similar. Oculi (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't get it, the term is a pejorative either way, but that doesn't mean it's not the best title for the article. Most RSes are using the technical theological term pejoratively as far as I can tell (they see it as extreme and contrary to proper Calvinism). Despite the non-neutrality of the title, POVTITLE says we go with the commonly used term. If someone had adopted the term, you'd have a case for it not being pejorative, but I've never heard someone do so. --JFHutson (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I did a quick look at the category and found a similar example: Patent troll. The article is about people who engage in a certain action commonly called patent trolling by RSes. These people do not like the term (see Patent troll#Criticism of the term), but the title remains because it's the most common usage in RSes. --JFHutson (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I looked through the article and saw that one person has adopted the term. I still think that because this is fairly rare, and because most RSes are using the term pejoratively, you have a pejorative. --JFHutson (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
And you have a source that uses it as a pejorative? ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that is OR, it just seems obvious to me. Anyway, I'm just saying that even if we establish that it is a pejorative (we'll need to find some source stating the obvious), that doesn't mean it's not the best name for the article, which now that I look over Good Ol'factory's posts, I guess that's not even at issue here. --JFHutson (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with tag removal Because the prefix "hyper-" may be used pejoratively in certain contexts doesn't mean that is the case here. Miniapolis (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I propose that we create High Calvinism and associated category tree, and redirect Hyper-Calvinism here. That term, although refering to the same thing, is less likely to be used pejoratively, but it still retains the theological distinction that is important. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • No objection from me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I strongly object. "High Calvinism" is something different - it has been historically used of a belief in double predestination, or even of an acceptance of limited atonement. StAnselm (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Object, what StAnselm said. I don't see how the fact that a word is used pejoratively figures in to how we name the article or category. Is there some reason we can't categorize someone with a pejorative? --JFHutson (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with tag removal - moving to "High Calvinism" would simply be inaccurate. Hyper-Calvinism is the proper term to be used here and is the way I have seen it used in a technical sense. Against the current (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with tag removal - the common usage of pejorative does not belong on the top of the page.Whiteguru (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Atonement, etc.[edit]

I'm not sure why the article is discussing the atonement - clearly both orthodox Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism accept Limited Atonement. I think we can remove the GS article on Particular Redemption. StAnselm (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Orthodox Calvinism holds to limited atonement (a limited efficiency) with a general design (a universal sufficiency). Some would extend a general design to greater lengths than others. However, the Gospel Standard Baptist (among others) would deny a general design whatsoever. Can the GS article title and observations use clarity on this note? The Canons of Dort (as an example of Orthodox Calvinism) state, "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." Others (as an example of Non Orthodox Calvinism) have stated, "The sufficiency of the atonement extends no further than its efficiency. The statement "sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect" has no Scriptural foundation." (Gery Schmidt, The Theological Foundation of the Modern Missionary Movement) A careful study of the controversy on Hyper-Calvinism (which Andrew Fuller addressed in the 18th century) will highlight a controversy over the extent of the sufficiency of the atonement. This was at the root of the controversy and is also why High Calvinism denies general offers of the gospel (concerning how Christ died for our sins) and a duty to receive such an offer. William Rushton in his book "Particular Redemption" writes, "Whenever the Scriptures speak of the sufficiency of redemption, they always place it in the certain efficacy of redemption. The atonement of Christ is sufficient because it is absolutely efficacious, and because it carries salvation to all for whom it was made. It is sufficient, not because it affords men the possibility of salvation but because, with invincible power, it accomplishes their salvation. Hence the word of God never represents the sufficiency of the atonement as more extensive than the design of the atonement, which Mr. Fuller has done."

Though Calvin denied that the sins of the reprobate (non-elect) have been expiated, he maintained that Christ died sufficiently for the whole world and efficiently for the elect. "And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel. Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world." (John Calvin, Commentary on 1 John 2:2)

See also Tony Byrne's Comparison Chart notes on Moderate Calvinism in the Modern Source Section.

Blessings66.215.216.111 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I can see that we can include a denial of the atonement being sufficient for all. But sufficiency is not the same as a general design. The thing is, Baxter is not representative of orthodox Calvinism, and many orthodox Calvinists would reject a "general design" in the atonement. So Article 28 should go, though I'm happy to keep the Rushton and Schmidt quotes - if we can source them properly. All we have is a name and a title - are they books? StAnselm (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe I mixed the Schmidt source with the Baxter source. It's from source; he is a minister at Providence Strict Baptist Assembly in Canada. Historical quotes/ sources have been provided instead. The point of rejection in Article 28, is to deny a residue of grace sufficient for all and offered indiscriminately to all for their acceptance or rejection. It is on the doctrine of Christ's sufficiency that Hyper-Calvinism differs from Baxterianism and Calvinism. I added some clarification in the intros and headings. Calvin and Baxter are very close on the intent of Christ death being an offer for the salvation of all persons in the whole world. "God’s Son came into the world to bring all men salvation, men are so ungrateful that they gnash their teeth against the teaching and try to kill those who seek to help them in this way." (John Calvin, Sermons on Acts 1-7, Sermon 21, Acts 5:33-35, 38-39, p., 277) "He was given not only to the Israelites, but to all men, of every people and every land, to the end that by him human nature might be reconciled to God." (John Calvin, ‘Preface to Olivetan’s New Testament,” in John Calvin: Commentaries, trans., and ed., by Joseph Haroutunian (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), pp., 61 and 63.) Blessings (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I realise the GS articles are responding to Baxter, but the fact that he does not represent mainstream orthodox Calvinism still troubles me. I think one of the issues here is that we just have a bunch of quotes. Eventually I would like to see this converted to prose. Something like: John Calvin believed X,(ref) and in this he was followed by most orthodox Calvinists, as well as by moderate Calvinists like Baxter.(ref) In responding to Baxter's view's, the Gospel Standard articles asserted Y.(ref) StAnselm (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I added a sentence about Richard Baxter, which might help clarify things. StAnselm (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

New Sections Added: Opposition and Support of the Doctrine[edit]

I added 2 new sections with the intent of presenting the historical arguments that were presented. Your thoughts, concerns, and input is appreciated. I intend to add observations with references of how ministers have understood certain passages of scripture. Among the sources I intend to use are ministers who opposed High-Calvinistic views and the scripture texts that were used (from Andrew Fuller, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, Daniel Whitby, Albert Barnes). It should be noteworthy, that opposition came from both Arminians (Wesley and Barnes) and Calvinist (Fuller and Spurgeon). To keep a balanced presentation, I will be including observations from minsters like John Gill, Robert Hawker, Wiliam Styles, and others who have held to views above genuine Calvinism. I intend to keep the observation format concise with no lengthy quotes. (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have also provided verification sources in the intro to show that these passages were a matter of the controversial views which became (or were) termed as High-Calvinism and eventually Hyper-Calvinism. The scripture citations are provided from the King James Version as this was the Bible version referred to by the historical sources. Links have been provided to Biblegateway for further context and (if preferred) a modern translation of the scriptures may be selected there. (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to have a list of scriptures like this, it only adds bulk. A better option would be to fill the section with content and place references to scriptures throughout. ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I see what you mean. It is a bit bulky. I'm reducing the extent of the scripture quotes, but for the sake of clarity in observations, I think it is needful to at least contain a brief phrase quotations from the scripture citations. I'm also considering a healthy limit to the amount scripture per section to maintain a concise reading. I'm thinking it would be good to have a sub section under each heading for a more extensive scripture list. (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)