![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Topic coordination | We're attempting to coordinate a few pages together, including Calvinism and Unconditional election. Feel free to discuss this at Talk:Calvinism. Other pages include: |
You might want to include a bit on what Calvin had to say about this idea. KHM03 16:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
...unless God himself beats me to it! KHM03 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
FYI I am planning to rework this article to parallel the structure of total depravity, limited atonement, etc. -- Flex 17:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Except for short quotes in the normal flow, I would probably lean toward reducing it to references in the footnotes (rather than long quotes), as in total depravity. -- Flex 18:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, I've not gotten around to this. Please feel free to take a swing at it, one and all. -- Flex ( talk| contribs) 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I took it upon myself to rework part of this wiki. I hope it is clear. I also wanted something about the effect of this election. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newchasm ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
Started a verses section that we could expand on later.
Five Pointer 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Avielh added a bunch more verses and arbitrarily converted the text to NAS. The latter move seems certainly against the spirit of arbitrarily changing things based on personal preference (cf. WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English, WP:FN#Converting_citation_styles, etc.).
I changed it back and redacted the list because the list was overly long (listing a few key passages with secondary sources backing up the understanding is much better) and because several of the verses didn't seem directly applicable. For instance, John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said to him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" is not obviously related to election so much as to regeneration. We who have a greater understanding of the ordo salutis certainly see the connection between them, but it is not immediate and direct, which I'd argue these verses should all be.
Avielh reverted this change, but rather than edit warring, I'll propose here we redact the list to the key passages (in the ESV, since that's where these started). -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 15:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Flex, I warm to your comment immediately above this section about the adding of verses on their own, etc... I sought to balance the ending with the following, what do you think? [this is whilst awaiting the expiry of a reasonable 'space' period before any possible transfer of the section below on the early church history to any other article] Here is my suggestion:
Other Christians understand these passages within different contexts so that John 15:16 refers to the 11 apostles; Acts 13:48 has no inference of God appointing in the text; Romans 9:15-16 is an explicit reference to applying mercy to the righteous in the O.T. context; Romans 9:22-24 has the 2 'prepared' translated from 2 different Greek words; The latter passages all refer to a group in view: you choose which group you are in. Jarom22 ( talk) 15:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt the neutrality of the changes to the early church fathers section done today. To suggest the consistent universal take on free will and responsibility was part of a polemic e.g. "This polemic" which in fact means a controversy or disputation is false in the records of the early church. Since it was universally recognised and fervently taught it was universal accepted doctrine and not subject to recognised opposition until Augustine. To this end I shall add a neutrality warning. Jarom22 ( talk) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore in regards to this neutrality: since Augustine before professing Christianity was a member of the Manichee sect, their view that "the nature of man can be corrupt to the point that his will is powerless to obey God's commands" (see "The Early Church" by Chadwick) was then fully reflected in his introduction of the new teaching of unconditional predestination.
So much so that the final section " . . . struggle to reconcile the idea of free will with the idea of predestinating grace, both of which are affirmed in Scripture and throughout Christian tradition" is also false and clearly biased. If it was universally accepted before Augustine's innovations that there was no "predestinating grace" of individuals - since only conditional predestination was taught - then it can also be seen as not affirmed in Scripture (properly translated) and not there for 400 years. Jarom22 ( talk) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to ( User_talk:Flex#unconditional_election_-_a_new_section.3F) for further discussion of this matter [as per link in the previous section]. Jarom22 ( talk) 10:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now made an attempt at re-working the whole section in line with our talk. If it is viewed as reasonable then it can be tranferred into the predestination article. Jarom22 ( talk) 11:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Flex. Your editing work yesterday and since is excellent. Well done. It reads much better. You set a good example of neutral writing. Jarom22 ( talk) 07:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Flex - Ok, so I see the section is no longer here at all (and I recognise you did not do this, but need to speak to the reservations you mention). This removal makes unconditional election appear 'suddenly' with John Calvin. If any history of the concept needs mentioning, then a reference to Augustine is crucial as the beginner of the system. If John Calvin is mentioned out of 'thin air' like this, does that not suggest a lack of neutrality in reservations about such a section? Especially since we have both already expounded sources that affirm Augustine is the point of departure in direct regards to this and thus the beginning and root of this system? Jarom22 ( talk) 11:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Section Biblical passages is not OK acc2 wikipedia policies, specifically WP:PRIMARY, unless we produce external secondary sources that uses exactly those biblical passages to defend exactly Unconditional election. We have no rights to list our own reasons for adhering to a certain theological stance here, that would be WP:OR. Since that is an endemic disease for christian protestant and other religious articles, see also Conditional election, I'm seriously considering a campaign against using Wikipedia as a battle field for theological debate. Wikipedia is for encyclopedians, and theological debate should be resolved outside Wikipedia first, then we might edit carefully and in consensus. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Topic coordination | We're attempting to coordinate a few pages together, including Calvinism and Unconditional election. Feel free to discuss this at Talk:Calvinism. Other pages include: |
You might want to include a bit on what Calvin had to say about this idea. KHM03 16:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
...unless God himself beats me to it! KHM03 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
FYI I am planning to rework this article to parallel the structure of total depravity, limited atonement, etc. -- Flex 17:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Except for short quotes in the normal flow, I would probably lean toward reducing it to references in the footnotes (rather than long quotes), as in total depravity. -- Flex 18:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, I've not gotten around to this. Please feel free to take a swing at it, one and all. -- Flex ( talk| contribs) 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I took it upon myself to rework part of this wiki. I hope it is clear. I also wanted something about the effect of this election. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newchasm ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
Started a verses section that we could expand on later.
Five Pointer 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Avielh added a bunch more verses and arbitrarily converted the text to NAS. The latter move seems certainly against the spirit of arbitrarily changing things based on personal preference (cf. WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English, WP:FN#Converting_citation_styles, etc.).
I changed it back and redacted the list because the list was overly long (listing a few key passages with secondary sources backing up the understanding is much better) and because several of the verses didn't seem directly applicable. For instance, John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said to him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" is not obviously related to election so much as to regeneration. We who have a greater understanding of the ordo salutis certainly see the connection between them, but it is not immediate and direct, which I'd argue these verses should all be.
Avielh reverted this change, but rather than edit warring, I'll propose here we redact the list to the key passages (in the ESV, since that's where these started). -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 15:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Flex, I warm to your comment immediately above this section about the adding of verses on their own, etc... I sought to balance the ending with the following, what do you think? [this is whilst awaiting the expiry of a reasonable 'space' period before any possible transfer of the section below on the early church history to any other article] Here is my suggestion:
Other Christians understand these passages within different contexts so that John 15:16 refers to the 11 apostles; Acts 13:48 has no inference of God appointing in the text; Romans 9:15-16 is an explicit reference to applying mercy to the righteous in the O.T. context; Romans 9:22-24 has the 2 'prepared' translated from 2 different Greek words; The latter passages all refer to a group in view: you choose which group you are in. Jarom22 ( talk) 15:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt the neutrality of the changes to the early church fathers section done today. To suggest the consistent universal take on free will and responsibility was part of a polemic e.g. "This polemic" which in fact means a controversy or disputation is false in the records of the early church. Since it was universally recognised and fervently taught it was universal accepted doctrine and not subject to recognised opposition until Augustine. To this end I shall add a neutrality warning. Jarom22 ( talk) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore in regards to this neutrality: since Augustine before professing Christianity was a member of the Manichee sect, their view that "the nature of man can be corrupt to the point that his will is powerless to obey God's commands" (see "The Early Church" by Chadwick) was then fully reflected in his introduction of the new teaching of unconditional predestination.
So much so that the final section " . . . struggle to reconcile the idea of free will with the idea of predestinating grace, both of which are affirmed in Scripture and throughout Christian tradition" is also false and clearly biased. If it was universally accepted before Augustine's innovations that there was no "predestinating grace" of individuals - since only conditional predestination was taught - then it can also be seen as not affirmed in Scripture (properly translated) and not there for 400 years. Jarom22 ( talk) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to ( User_talk:Flex#unconditional_election_-_a_new_section.3F) for further discussion of this matter [as per link in the previous section]. Jarom22 ( talk) 10:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now made an attempt at re-working the whole section in line with our talk. If it is viewed as reasonable then it can be tranferred into the predestination article. Jarom22 ( talk) 11:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Flex. Your editing work yesterday and since is excellent. Well done. It reads much better. You set a good example of neutral writing. Jarom22 ( talk) 07:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Flex - Ok, so I see the section is no longer here at all (and I recognise you did not do this, but need to speak to the reservations you mention). This removal makes unconditional election appear 'suddenly' with John Calvin. If any history of the concept needs mentioning, then a reference to Augustine is crucial as the beginner of the system. If John Calvin is mentioned out of 'thin air' like this, does that not suggest a lack of neutrality in reservations about such a section? Especially since we have both already expounded sources that affirm Augustine is the point of departure in direct regards to this and thus the beginning and root of this system? Jarom22 ( talk) 11:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Section Biblical passages is not OK acc2 wikipedia policies, specifically WP:PRIMARY, unless we produce external secondary sources that uses exactly those biblical passages to defend exactly Unconditional election. We have no rights to list our own reasons for adhering to a certain theological stance here, that would be WP:OR. Since that is an endemic disease for christian protestant and other religious articles, see also Conditional election, I'm seriously considering a campaign against using Wikipedia as a battle field for theological debate. Wikipedia is for encyclopedians, and theological debate should be resolved outside Wikipedia first, then we might edit carefully and in consensus. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)