Talk:Predestination in Calvinism

message: I made some appropriate changes to the article. I did a large rewrite but not on the whole thing. Right now the article needs deletion/condensing of a lot of side issues and histories. I didn't feel like hijacking the whole edit or putting negative bias into views that are not my own. The article does not as of yet mention the source of this Calvinistic belief or theistic determinism. It only mentions predestination with respect to election. The source of doctrine comes from God being absolutely sovereign, infinitely wise, omniscient, and omnipotent. He will work all things for the good of those who believe in Him. God thus carries out His own plan throughout time, absolutely to completion with infinite wisdom. The means are predestination. It also needs to discuss the dangers when we try to see God's plan that remains unrevealed. We should not try to look into it or judge others. Calvin addresses this. Finally, It needs to state that it differs from fatalism in the sense that it is not blind or based on random chance. --Newchasm
I think the calvinism's response should not be included. Appearantly some Calvinist thought that the rest of the article did a bad job at explainaion of Their doctrine. Furthermore, I fully understand calvinistic predestination. It has much more to do with absolute sovereignty than it does with election. Double predestination does not equal Calvinistic predestination. Furthermore, Unconditional election is the outworking of predestination in Salvation. It is not the cause. Next, the discussion on free will is misleading since calvinist's mean different things with that phrase. Read Jonathan Edwards. The will is free to follow what it desires most. It is still free here but it is not free in what it can desire. I might try to rework this article later. --Newchasm
I agree with Ed, in particular the "calvinisms response" part I suggest it be deleted in part that it was added and does contain bias in that it builds a straw man of calvinism and also sola fide. hewoulddieforu  
A lot of this sounds like personal opinion, disagreeing with Calvinism. I suggest a rewrite. --Ed Poor
It is a topic under discussion on Predestination, written from a calvinist's point of view, in the attempt to show that calvinists are capable of sympathizing with the difficulty involved in understanding a doctrine that is not meant to be understood; while trying to show its usefulness within the calvinist system. I am hoping that an agreement can be reached on how the doctrine can be expressed, so that those who believe it can agree with those who do not, regarding how the doctrine should be expressed in a neutral point of view.   If we reach that agreement, then I suggest that this topic should be deleted (or, rewritten with a less practical purpose in mind). The idea is similar to what has been done in Jehovah's Witnesses. Mkmcconn
Actually, upon reading the entire article, this article seesm remarkably balanced. It points out, quite fairly, that most people find the Calvinist doctrine incomprehensible, and then explains why Calvinists believe that it is defensible. Itis done in class Wikipedia NPOV style. This is great. However, I think it errs, in that it attributes a belief to Calvinists that they don't have. The author of this entry so far holds that Calvinists really don't believe what they say they believe; rather they believe in free will in the same way that most people do. Therefore he strains to find a way to make their belief reject predestination, despite the Calvinists own claims. This I find incorrect. Calvinists are very clear that some people are elect, others are not, and that there is nothing that anyone can do about this. They can, if they wish, add that "free will" also exists, but this is literally impossible to do. It is a logical contradiction, and can only be affirmed by cognative dissonance (a mental state in which a person holds two mutually contradictory beliefs at the same time.) RK
: That's true.  It is not free will in the same sense as others hold to it.  This is the importance of the section on "Equivocal or analogical concepts of freedom" in the Predestination article. Mkmcconn
This is a polemic against the doctrine, rather than a statement of it. I suggest that this page is deleted until a better definition of this doctrine is available. This is not the forum for such argumentative articles. By all means put this is an article on Universalism or some other such. This is not educational, in that it should provide a positive definistion and explanation of the doctrine. notsnhoj
: It contains polemic against the doctrine, yes.  But it is written to answer those arguments; as discussed above, the essay was written to help explain a particular approach to the topic of predestination.  It was intended that it should be deleted; but in the meantime, several articles linked to it.  If your concern is that it is offensive to Calvinists: it was written by a Calvinist - which does not guarantee that it is not offensive, but it may vouche for its neutrality.  See Predestination and Types of religious predestination for the product of the discussion of which this essay was a part. Mkmcconn 05:41, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly needs work as is. But I don't think it's all that bad by Wikipedia standards, frankly. I'd keep it. Andrewa 19:51, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: This page is essentially a polemic against the doctrine rather than an imformative definition of it. Regardless of my opinion of the doctrine, i would expect as a researcher, to find a posiotive definition of the doctrine with links to arguments against it. notsnhoj
*Should probably be listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup, not here.  RickK 04:56, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for Deletion

message: The central thesis of the essay that has been cut (rightly so, keeping with wikipedia style and genre standards), is that the use of a doctrine is part of its meaning.  For that reason, the instruction that governs the use of the doctrine is not an appendix, but pertains to the doctrine itself.  The first half of the essay places all weight on the definition from the Westminster Standards, and the second half leans heavily on the section governing use:
: The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
In addition, the chapter on Election distances itself from philosophical notions of fatalism, pointing out that fatalism contradicts the doctrine by eliminating appreciation of secondary causes and by not distinguishing between predestination and coercion.  
In short, the doctrine is not completely expressed only in one section.  Only its offensiveness is rightly perceived there, but none of its mitigating elements, which also form the doctrine.  So, while the essay form is not appropriate, somehow a full explanation of this topic should point out that there is more to the doctrine as it is fully developed, than is expressed in one section of one chapter of the constitution of one branch of the reformed churches.  Do you agree? Mkmcconn 17:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoiding partial explantions

message: I have added a bit more material; it seems that it has been difficult for folks to reach any kind of agreement on this subject.  Most of what I have added has been Arminian/Wesleyan in nature, but I certainly don't want it to remain that way, and earnestly hope that someone is able to flesh it out to make it a bit more NPOV. An important historical theological topic such as this deserves serious consideration. KHM03 23:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 edits 

message: I added a request for expansion.  This is an important theological topic for the understanding of Calvinism which, though I don't agree with all of it, is surely one of the great schools of Christian thought.  The page needs work!  KHM03 19:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion request

message: The section currently asserts that double predestination is not the Calvinistic position. Perhaps the relevant statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith could be included: By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. (III,3) StAnselm 04:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, I've gone ahead and severely edited it. StAnselm 09:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Double Predestination can mean different things to different people. Lutherans originally held single predestination that was only positive. They ignored the negative aspect to the logic, that people were left to go to hell. Calvinists did not overlook such. Calvinists came along and logically pieced single predestination into what Lutherans called double predestination.  Whereas Calvinists use this title for hypercalvinists as I understand it. I was using it in respect to the latter where people are elected to hell or heaven actively. I like the clarity you put in this section since it describes what I wanted to convey. I like some of the other edits too.Newchasm 05:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Reformed people interpret "predestined" and "foreordained" differently, they say one is active while the other is passive, so they don't believe in Double Predestination. Avielh 16:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Double Predestination

message: This article has a larger section on Universalists and Arminians than on Calvinists. Someone needs to reduce the size or delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newchasm (talk • contribs) 05:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove or cut down the baggage. 

message: I don't understand the C.S. Lewis bit in the Universalism section, or recognise it from anywhere in his writings. Is it really in "Mere Christianity"? If so, is it relevant? - C.S. Lewis wasn't a Universalist. And if it is relevant, can it be cleaned up a bit so it reads more clearly?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.131.130 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  C.S. Lewis 

message: Only a complete moron would conflate the two, and I doubt there's a reputable source.  Anyone who knows the word "Pelagian" would know better.  The next person who agrees should just go ahead and delete it, since I see no one ever responded to the (citation needed).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.110.191.26 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Delete Paragraph about Calvinists thinking Arminians are Pelagians 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Predestination (Calvinism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110328214130/http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2242 to http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2242
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Predestination in Calvinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102220709/http://www.bloomingtonrpchurch.org/refdocpre/index.html to http://www.bloomingtonrpchurch.org/refdocpre/index.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160204183152/http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwpredest.htm to http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwpredest.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Predestination in 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151115003845/http://www.covenanter.org:80/Beza/bezas_table.html to http://www.covenanter.org/Beza/bezas_table.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified