Talk:Charles Grandison Finney/Archive 1

message: It is with regret that I removed all of Kyle's contributions. It wasn't that I disagreed with him, it is just that the section was a little bit too "off-beam" to be relevant. It seemed like a comment made from a Calvinist pov, which is not really useful in this article.
If anything, the contribution needs to be tightened up in terms of words, and placed in the criticisms section.
--One Salient Oversight 01:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Kyle's contributions

message: I understand that I am persuasive in he manner in which I right, but is this not the nature of truth? I have not understood this, I have been told this by professors. I feel if I am to write in a "neutral" manner I must write as if there is no truth. I simply want to show what is really happening. No matter what my view of "calvinism" is what I read about "Calvinism" does not match nor logically lead to the meathods that were used.
Is the problem not what points I make but the way I put them forth. I do not understand. Generally truth tends to be pushy because it does not allow one to err from it.
Please let me know.
Kyle Mullaney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 01:26, 4 April 2005 (talk • contribs) Kyle.Mullaney
:Have you been editing Wikipedia for long? I know that you, like me, would prefer to assert certain truths in definite language. Unfortunately, being a publically controlled encyclopedia means that the language has to be "toned down", and things that you know to be true have to worded carefully. It's actually quite easy when you get used to it.
:Let me give you an example. Finney did not claim to be an Arminian, but the fact is that his beliefs confirm him as one. More than that, a careful examination of his works actually show him to be Pelagian. Now I could write it as follows:
:Finney did not claim to be Arminian but he was wrong. Everything he said shows that he was Arminian, and denied the Bible. Worse than that, he totally denied original sin. How can someone do this and be called a Christian? He obviously wasn't - he was a false teacher.
:But that would be torn apart here at Wikipedia. So we need to tone it down a bit. Here's how it should be re-written:
:Finney claimed to not be Arminian, but it is not certain what this claim entails. An analysis of Finney's works shows some theological understanding - such as the freedom of the individual to reject God's grace - that is synonymous with Arminian theology. Some Christians have even labeled Finney a "Pelagian" because his teachings seem to clearly imply that the doctrine original sin is incorrect. As a result of this, many theologians today have concluded that Finney's teaching was heterodox.
:Now the advantage of the second paragraph over the first one is that it is written in a very "encyclopedic" manner. The language and emphasis used is not biased in any way. However, what it does communicate to the reader is that there are some things about Finney which need careful examination. As a result of this factual presentation, the reader may, in fact, do his/her own research and conclude that he is, in fact, a false teacher.
:Now this may sound all secretive and manipulative - however it really is not. Another person who is a Finney fan is allowed to come along and write another sentence that supports Finney - in an obviously neutral manner. This is actually good, for it gives the reader the chance to do more research.
:I now this might be hard - I am an English teacher so words and sentences are actually very important to me. Try your contribution again, except this time try to change the language to be more neutral. I will come in again and see what it is like. But rather than revert it, I will make some changes myself. By the way, if you're unhappy about this editing process, please understand that this is how Wikipedia works. Everything we contribute to Wikipedia becomes public domain knowledge and is not "ours".
:--One Salient Oversight 04:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes it neutral 

message: I removed a brief paragraph on the criticisms of Horton & Sproul re: the governmental view of the atonement.  Those comments are probably more apropo on the page for that subject (although they still were in sore need of reference & context), and did not specifically address Finney's take.  He was not the originator of that view, but did embrace it & modify it to his own theological hermeneutic.  KHM03 17:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Atonement (Governmental view)]] 

message: The theology section is looking a bit better.  I moved the paragraph about Calvinist objections to the end of the section rather than the beginning; let's explain the man's beliefs fairly before mentioning that a few people object to them.  The section could still use some condensation of Finney's views rather than extended quotes.  KHM03 19:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The theology section still reads very POV to me.  I added a template.  It needs work; Finney's theology ought to be looked at as it is (was) first, and only then (briefly) compared with conservative Calvinism.  KHM03 19:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aug 05 revisions 

message: Howdy. Don't know a thing about Charles, but I can see a good article in the making. :) I found my way here after doing some research on Susan B. Anthony and the First Unitarian Church of Rochester, NY. I removed the POV tag (which was inexplicably placed in the middle of the article), and replaced it with a sect-POV tag. Also, I added the Original Resarch tag to that section, which covers the components of the text which are pretty unencyclopedic in their bias and non-neutral voice. However, we cannot just leave these tags in articles forever. If I don't see that the biased text is being improved and redacted to create a better article, I'll have to remove text wholesale to leave an article that obeys Wikipedia's official policies. Thanks in advance for your work. --NightMonkey 21:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sect-POV and Original Research 

message: I found the following quote in the article very interesting: "Theologically, Finney drew elements from the eighteenth century American preacher, Jonathan Edwards and the New Divinity Calvinists."  I have read much about and by both men (mostly Edwards) and am not familiar with this influence.  If this theological influence could be specified and documented I think it would increase the value of the article.  I am aware of the similarities (and differences in their approaches to revival, but have not discovered this theological influence.  Would be grateful for elaboration.--Loudguy 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence from Edwards

message: FINNEY in his book Religious Revivals wrote that he had to undo the "calvinist old myths" believed by someone he tried to bring to Jesus
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.5.185 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 November 2006
:. Part Deux 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finney not calvinist

message: Charles Grandison Finney → Charles Finney — Much more common name: it's the name used in literature: google search confirms as much Part Deux 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support as nom Part Deux 19:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support as nom Part Deux 19:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support as nom Part Deux 19:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Oppose ANB lists him as Charles Grandison Finney, and calls him, in other articles, either that or Charles G. Finney. The initial may be most common, but is ambiguous with the author, and harder to find and link to. Who calls him Charles Finney, simpliciter? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: While I appreciate the discussion of theology, I'd like to see it attached to more biographical and historical description.  For example, in articles about John Bunyan I've appreciated reading details about his imprisonments, how he went from a new believer to a preacher, and how he caught the illness from which he died.  Even though I was born and bred in America, I don't know enough about the 19th century American city.  Did Finney meet Calvinists in daily life, or was this a war of the press?  What was a revival like?  The anxiety bench was an interesting detail, but I want more.  How did Finney die, and how typical was it of other preachers or other American men of that time?  This is another reason, beside documentation, to encourage someone to mention sources. 71.206.221.118 23:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short On Details