Talk:Amyraldism: Difference between revisions
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
There have been numerous edits (and I believe, improvements) since the Clean-up banner was added by [[User:Flex]]. I'm not sure what else is needed. I will wait for Flex to review and perhaps delete the banner. [[User:Jim Ellis|Jim Ellis]] 16:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC) |
There have been numerous edits (and I believe, improvements) since the Clean-up banner was added by [[User:Flex]]. I'm not sure what else is needed. I will wait for Flex to review and perhaps delete the banner. [[User:Jim Ellis|Jim Ellis]] 16:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC) |
||
==Recent edits== |
|||
In the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amyraldism&diff=62215019&oldid=57342503 recent edits] by [[User:69.19.14.40|69.19.14.40]], there seems to be some helpful, non-controversial material, but there is also a distinct bias as noted by the use of the qualifier on "Bezan Calvinism" that will need to be [[NPOV|neutralized]]. I know that it has been suggested by some scholars that [[Calvinism]], especially as it exists today, does not represent [[John Calvin|Calvin]]'s Calvinism but [[Theodore Beza|Beza]]'s expansion and modifications thereof (similar to how modern [[Lutheranism]] is supposed to have been largely mediated through [[Philip Melancthon|Melancthon]]). What can we do to make this perspective more represented in the articles on Calvinism? While what we call Calvinism today is fairly accurately described by the Calvinism article IMHO, I think this viewpoint on the historical development of Calvinism certainly deserves a (preferably documented) paragraph or section in that article. --[[User:Flex|Flex]] 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:49, 5 July 2006
Four point Calvinism
Since Amyraldism is perhaps the most popular form of Calvinism, in the wider Evangelical world, should we add the Calvinism template here? Amyraldians very commonly think of themselves as Calvinian Calvinists (a term that I think was coined by a professor of mine - an Amyraldian). Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- True Amyraldism is Calvinistic in that it maintains the particularity of sovereign grace in election. Therefore, I have no problem including the Calvinism template, which by the way, looks good. I believe most would agree that technically it is a brand of Calvinism, even though I don't agree with it. :-) Jim Ellis 22:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup
There have been numerous edits (and I believe, improvements) since the Clean-up banner was added by User:Flex. I'm not sure what else is needed. I will wait for Flex to review and perhaps delete the banner. Jim Ellis 16:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Recent edits
In the recent edits by 69.19.14.40, there seems to be some helpful, non-controversial material, but there is also a distinct bias as noted by the use of the qualifier on "Bezan Calvinism" that will need to be neutralized. I know that it has been suggested by some scholars that Calvinism, especially as it exists today, does not represent Calvin's Calvinism but Beza's expansion and modifications thereof (similar to how modern Lutheranism is supposed to have been largely mediated through Melancthon). What can we do to make this perspective more represented in the articles on Calvinism? While what we call Calvinism today is fairly accurately described by the Calvinism article IMHO, I think this viewpoint on the historical development of Calvinism certainly deserves a (preferably documented) paragraph or section in that article. --Flex 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)