Talk:R. C. Sproul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Influences[edit]

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)[reply]

Denomination[edit]

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)[reply]
So could his affiliation be just described as "Protestant" or something close to it so that on this page about a preacher the 'religion' in his info ox is not left empty? Invmog (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jr. Deposed[edit]

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)[reply]
An anon at 70.124.193.87 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)[reply]

Miscellaneous Questions[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
On "an American, Calvinist theologian, and pastor" - no, "Calvinist theologian" is its own thing, and one's Calvinism need not be a cover for Americanism. Maybe "a Calvinist theologian and an American pastor" MaynardClark (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 96.52.202.141 (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinism vs Reformed[edit]

I believe Reformed is the better term. Reformed is the broadest of the two terms. Calvinist is a narrower term. Sproul is Presbyterian by denomination, which historically is traced 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)[reply]

Evidentialism[edit]

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 his 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)[reply]

"spamlink"?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
 Done --Andrew from NC (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Me too. I think the link should stay. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me, also. I would want the link to stay. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
As an admin, I would remove the site from the spam blacklist, but (as I don't know the coding) I fear doing it lest I break something. Perhaps you could ask a specific administrator who edits that list, such as Ckatz (talk · contribs)? Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Updated 16 November 2016) Nyttend (talk · contribs) I have taken up getting sermonaudio.com removed from the blacklist. Unfortunately, at some time in the past somebody from sermonaudio.com or elsewhere started spamming Wikipedia with links to Sermon Audio. This is extremely disappointing to me, and it is why we can't have nice things. So, I've asked for specific links to sermon audio to be approved. We'll see how that process goes. Fool4jesus (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Sproul is a Calvinist. These are very thoughtful Reformation theology radio broadcasts. MaynardClark (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. RC Sproul, Sr. Headshot.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

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
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words[edit]

In the quote, "Sproul's work The Holiness of God[8] 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 112.153.81.195 (talk • contribs)

Not if a WP:RS says that it is considered a modern classic. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi this is God. I'm just browsing your humble Earth people's Wikipedia on My holy Sunday. R.C.Sproul is right, he is influenced by God. No nore doubts and questions, please. 93.219.132.186 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on R. C. Sproul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ligonier Valley?[edit]

It is a bit odd, and I think, incorrect, to state that Ligonier Ministries is named after "Ligonier Valley". I believe Ligonier ministries is named after the town of Ligonier. "Ligonier Valley" is a commercial term used by the chamber of commerce and the school district, but as someone who grew up in the area, it's not a term otherwise used very often, whereas "Ligonier" is. In fact the town is very well known because of the fort and the annual Ligonier Days celebration. It follows then that if Sproul had really meant "Ligonier Valley Ministries", he would have used the full and less common term. I realize the distinction doesn't matter much, but it struck me as a bit off when I read the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHBoggs (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this association made in one of Dr. Sproul's radio broadcasts? MaynardClark (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on R. C. Sproul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading information[edit]

The article states that most in the scientific community are materialists. There is no evidence for this misleading claim; in fact there is evidence to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.226.29 (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

There have been lots of edits removing the photo - either by one user or multiple users (one of whom promptly retired). Apparently it's because the image is retouched. Both versions are used on Wikipedia - should we use the original? I don't understand the objection this editor has to retouching. StAnselm (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R._C._Sproul&oldid=1210515502"