Jump to content

Talk:Hyper-Calvinism

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Hyper-Calvinism. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the article.

[edit]

I well understand that there are terms of the art. However this is an encyclopaedia not intended for the elect, but for the general reader. As a general reader, I have no inkling what the term "urge" means, nor do I understand why it is necessary to write "authored", when "wrote" would serve just as well. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fixed 96.41.54.86 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Definition

[edit]

There are significant problems with the opening and apparent definition of this topic. This is the text I am referring to: "Hyper-Calvinism is a branch of Protestant theology that denies the universal duty of human beings to believe in Christ for the salvation of their souls. It is at times regarded as a variation of Calvinism, but critics emphasize its differences from traditional Calvinistic beliefs. Hyper-Calvinism distinguishes itself from traditional Calvinism as regards the "sufficiency and efficiency" of Christ's atonement." This sounds like a straw man written by a Calvinist, trying to slander Hyper-Calvinism, making it sound like it is not even Christianity (you don't have to believe in Jesus to have salvation). I am going to quote the definition of Hyper-Calvinism from Toon's book, page 144, where he defines it. This will give us a clear definition. I am going to delete the text cited above, since it is without citations, and it contradicts Toon's definition, for the aforementioned reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrupp (talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my block quote. Fine, but the opening sentence you have is incorrect, absolutely not at all the definition of Hyper-Calvinism, and no citation connected to that definition. I will write a replacement sentence, based on Toon's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrupp (talk • contribs) 03:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and other serious concerns with this article

[edit]

I want to start off by recognizing that folks have put work into this article since 2004. So, it's a bit awkward addressing the problems with it. Nonetheless,

  1. NPOV. This article started off describing hyper-Calvinism as theology that "deviates from the gospel." This polemical, biased tone has changed over the years, but is very much present in the current version.
  2. Name and scope. Is "hyper-Calvinism" even the proper name for an article? It is a pejorative term. If it actually refers to a theological system, then a neutral, non-pejorative term must be used. ( Is there any theologian or church, at any time period, that described itself as hyper-Calvinist?) If the article is simply a history of the use of a pejorative, without a well-defined subject or target, then say so. In 2005, the scope was a "theological position that historically arose from within the Calvinist tradition among the early English Strict and Particular Baptists in the mid 1700's ." So, this could be an article about 18th C Calvinists.
  3. My sense is that this should be merged into a section (or subarticle) on criticisms of Five Point Calvinism.
  4. Much of the article comes across as a Wikipedia:POVFORK from Calvinism or one of its subarticles. It claims to describe hyper-Calvinist doctrine, as a series of denials (POV?), and then presents a POV on "Orthodox Calvinistic doctrine" that is based on Wikipedia:Primary sources, Calvin and bible quotes, not reliable sources. I'm sorry, but this is not encyclopedic and acceptable.

Maybe there's an earlier version of this article without these problems? Currently it reads more like a personal theological essay than WP. It seems I'm not the first person to mention this, so I'm sorry that other editors have not helped fix the situation. ProfGray (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's not a self-designation is not necesarily fatal in itself. There are a lot of terms for groups which were originally insults, including "Tory", "Whig", "Quaker" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here it's one more indication of the foundational problems with the article.
Another example is Orthodox Jews. Orthodox was originally an outsider insult. But now Orthodox Jews mostly use the term, as do Quakers etc., and the origin doesn't matter.
But is there a single book issued by this purported "branch of Protestant theology" known as "hyper-Calvinism" or "False Calvinism" (see Definitions section)?
Is there a single academic source, a Reliable source, from religious studies or history (of Christianity) that refers to "hyper-Calvinism" and is cited in this article? ProfGray (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. The very first reference, by Peter Toon (published by Wipf and Stock[1]). StAnselm (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s a theological, polemical book. It’s not a neutral study of religion(s). ProfGray (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I don't think you've read it. StAnselm (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I certainly did not read the whole Toon book but I scanned enough to see that it's theology, not NPOV academic research. Now looking more carefully, here are examples of theological points of view of the author (emphasis added):
  • "The most serious perversion of Puritan orthodoxy was doctrinal antinomianism"
  • "AUTHENTIC CALVINISM."
  • "However, the Biblical humanism of Calvin is to be preferred to the logical orthodoxy of much of the later Reformed teaching."
  • "Therefore the seeds were sown which, when watered after 1706 by the doctrines of Joseph Hussey, grew, in some cases, into an even more rigid form of Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism."
  • Hussey "adopted an extreme Reformed position, so extreme that it merits the title of “Hyper-Calvinism”, since with its doctrine of no offers of grace and its supralapsarianism it rose well above (or sunk beneath) the theology of Calvin and of the orthodox Reformed Puritan divines."
  • "We shall conclude this chapter with a brief comparison of Calvin’s doctrines of God, His decrees and covenants, with those of the Hyper-Calvinists.  This comparison will show just how far the three authors whom we are studying have moved from authentic Calvinism."
  • " Perhaps at this point we should seek to supply a definition of Hyper-Calvinism.  It was a system of theology, or a system of the doctrines of God, man and grace, which was framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and did so at the expense of minimising the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners to God.  It placed excessive emphasis on the immanent acts of God – eternal justification, eternal adoption and the eternal covenant of grace.  In practice, this meant that “Christ and Him crucified”, the central message of the apostles, was obscured." "Excessive emphasis was also placed on the doctrine of irresistible grace with the tendency to state that an elect man is not only passive in regeneration but also in conversion as well." // but also his entire framing is biased, not just specific words
  • [Why did high become hyper-Calvinism?] "...High Calvinism was placed in an environment which emphasised the role of reason in religious faith.  This meant that the High Calvinists were in danger either of absorbing the rationalism, or of rejecting it completely, or of doing both.  It would seem that Joseph Hussey fell prey to both temptations." 
  • "the Hyper-Calvinists were sincere men of average intelligence, but they lacked a prophetical and discerning spirit.  They keenly desired to glorify God and mistakenly believed that God was more glorified by the exaltation of free grace in the pulpit and on the printed page, than in the evangelism and conversion of men.  They became so obsessed with the defence of what they regarded as sound doctrine that the evangelistic note of Scripture as basically an overture by God towards sinners was muted.  This lack of interest in evangelism (and a reference to evangelism in their books is virtually impossible to find) came, as we have seen, with the deduction of the duty of ministers in preaching from the secret will of the Lord, the will of His decrees.  They did not realise what a baneful influence their doctrines would have upon those who followed in their footsteps."
It is clear that Toon is writing a theological against some Calvinists who he believes have gone astray, perverted "authentic" Calvinism, etc. He defines "hyper-Calvinism" in a polemical way. It is not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources for an article about theologians he considers "inauthentic," lacking discernment, "obsessed," etc. ProfGray (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV in "modern definitions of the term"

[edit]

The current version is based on a religious POVs that are antagonistic to the purported object of study (if there is a distinct branch of Calvinist theology for this article), emphasis added:

  • /WP/ Curt Daniel defines Hyper-Calvinism as "that school of supralapsarian Five Point Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by overemphasizing the secret [will of God] over the revealed will [of God] and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word ‘offer’ in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them." // i.e., frame as wrong & denial
  • /WP/ Iain Murray adopts a different approach, putting the emphasis on the denial of a "universal command to repent and believe" and the assertion "that we have only warrant to invite to Christ those who are conscious of a sense of sin and need." // i.e., framed as a denial of a True theology, rather than as paraphrase of their theology
  • /WP/ Jim Ellis argues that "adequately defining what constitutes the fundamental error of hyper-Calvinism" is problematic because many definitions "blur the distinction between it and legitimate Calvinism", and most of them include an apparent bias against Five Point Calvinism. Ellis goes on to say that Hyper-Calvinism "consists of two fundamental errors: a denial of duty-faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel." // i.e., framed as error, illegimate, and a denial of a True theology

These definitions are unacceptable for an encyclopedia article about a "branch of theology." ProfGray (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think it is? StAnselm (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See, even if it's a pejorative term, it's still referring to a particular view or set of views. I think the consensus is that it's the denial of the free offer. StAnselm (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a polemical term, not a self-identifying one, so I'd imagine that it would cover an inconsistent semantic range. Look at those listed as rejecting Free offer of the gospel -- are these all fairly labeled as hyper-Calvinists and would it be NPOV to do so?
Can you find it defined in some academic encyclopedias? Or in historical (not theological) peer-reviewed papers? I'd like to be helpful to you, but I can't without greater confidence in such sources. How personally wedded are you to this article? Might be more fruitful to work on the Free offer article --- and its opponents, and using their own terminology, no the derogatory one if possible. ProfGray (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally wedded to the article in that I think it absolutely needs to be retained. Both the term and the belief system really do exist. Yes, it will be in theological (and perhaps other) encyclopedias: I disagree with your approach of preferencing history over theology. StAnselm (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article in the Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith is written by our friend Peter Toon. StAnselm (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. We should start with this: "I disagree with your approach of preferencing history over theology." If need be, we could get input from others on the pivotal question of what are preferred reliable sources in Wikipedia. Let's discuss how we understand: Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:Bias.
In my view, there is a strong WP preference for academic historical scholarship over theology, especially when the theology sources are writing polemically about other people's theology that they disagree with, albeit in subtle ways that may not be clear to casual observers. ProfGray (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=1207680795"