Talk:Crypto-Calvinism

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

Bias[edit]

I've reverted the article to where it was before a paid employee of a religious group that has always attacked and opposed (Crypto-)Calvinism, User:Ptmccain, has changed this article to his own POV. This is really dragging theological fights from the 16th and 17th century to the present. It's as if the Consul General of Turkey would openly "correct" the essay on the Armeniam massacres! Some of the most significant facts, such as the execution of Krell, and also the legacy today are simply deleted, the entire essay is made to sound as if this was the problem of some Wittenberg professors who has the "wrong views", and so on. It's really amazing that this is done openly, but well, with activist fundamentalists (who go back to "Gnesio-Lutherans" that have nothing to do with Martin Luther himself, who because of people like that said that he was "not a Lutheran"), nothing should surprise one.

NPOV dispute[edit]

This article has many NPOV problems:

  • 1st chapter: Lutheranism is almost presented as just a splinter group of Swiss Reformation. This is historically not correct.
  • 3rd chapter: Strong opionions about what Lutheranism should be, only from Calvinistic point of wiew, does not mention Philippism, but represents it as normative Lutheranism.
  • 4th chapter: Issue in LC-MS - what is this supposed to mean? Is Missouri-Synod crypto-Calvinistic? how about doctrinal position of other confessional Lutheran church bodies?

In addition to Calvinistic point of wiew, this article, as it is, evidently lacks elementary knowledge about Lutheran theology and church history, despite of its long bibliography. There would be need to separate article about Second Sacramentarian Controversy (de:Zweiter Abendmahlsstreit, see Joachim Westphal (of Hamburg)) (Terot 11:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed! Now, 14:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC):
objection 1 is still an issue,
objection 2: the text "Luther himself had distanced himself from them, but to no avail." indicates that the accusation of "crypto-Calvinism" was unjust, but an encyclopedic text shall be NPOV, so it is still an issue,
objection 3: the text alleges that "many Lutherans actually were heavily inclined toward Calvinism" &endash; this is to be disputed unless some academic citations support such a notion, my vague impressions of Swedish Church history indicate that inclination towards Calvinism was really rare (in Sweden, that is), so still an issue,
objection 4: Funny! Isn't it?! Such as like: the "Western Union of Horse Traders claims the Glorious Tradition of crypto-Fascism" - if they "openly claim", there is no "crypto+" nor any "hidden". The para is simply hillarious! Said: Rursus ☻ 14:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No intention of likeness between Calvinism and Fascism intended. Just a simile between the usage of "insults". Said: Rursus ☻ 14:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now expanded the article, and hopefully removed NPOV problems, although article is still not as good as it might became. (Terot (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Crypto-Calvinism[edit]

I have heard Jansenists called this. There is a case for such.

Furthermore, I have also heard American Evangelicals called this from time to time. One could perhaps make a case for such among certain Southern baptists.

I do not know much about Lutheran Crypto-Calvinism but, as I understand the reformers fought over sacrements. First. They also fought on the extent of election (single or double). They did not hold to the same design of atonement as calvinists. This logically developed into the limited atonement doctrine. A step lutherans didn't like. Third, they fought over the place of tradition. Calvinists were prone to cut everything. Lutherans sought to reform what was necessary.

This article doesn't really mention much about what a crypto-calvinist is. It only mentions the political aspects. (which is ok). It also needs touch this charge outside of lutheranism. These instances are less severe but it should be noted. 75.66.190.118 05:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup request[edit]

The article mainly treats "Crypto-Calvinism" as equal to "Gnesio-Lutherans". The topic is in fact about a general accusation of "Calvinist" tendencies, and the "Gnesio-Lutherans" is one sect (?), one movement (?), or one political position (?) that used the accusation in excess. "Gnesio-Lutherans" should have one separate article, the issues by User:Terot should be taken care of so that the article attains a non-Bias towards "Calvinist" vs "Gnesio-Lutherans" vs "moderate Lutherans". Said: Rursus ☻ 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the really strange article at Mississippi Synod have been heavily responsible for the bad quality of the article. Those guys maintain that "P. Melanchthon* was the father of Crypto-Calvinists"! Idiotic! How can anyone be "father" of something "crypto+"? Unless the article has some serious bias, the sentence is clearly malformed. I say this as a Lutheran, defending WP:NPOV and religious tolerance. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has happened since my previous raving around, so I'm considering kidnapping this article, renaming it to Gnesio-Lutheranism, removing irrelevantia and puting it in a new article called "crypto-calvinism" or some such. Said: Rursus ☻ 18:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two separate articles sounds like a good idea, since the pejorative "crypto-Calvinist" can be used outside of the Lutheran church. Srnec (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading my previous statements (while keeping the opinion that "crypto-Calvinist" should be moved to something less pejorative), makes me wonder: Was I drunk, when I wrote that? Anyway, to clarify myself: "crypto-Calvinist" is pejorative kind of (considering that "Calvinist" might be a good thing) - the Gnesio-Lutherans deserve an article for their political standpoint, and "crypto-Calvinist" is a so called accusation that is not about Calvinism, but about enemies of Calvinism, using the word as a political weapon. Anyway: I'll move the page now, since it won't get very much attention. I'm being bold! Said: Rursus ☻ 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

As per previous section Cleanup request, last paragraph by me, myself and my darned ego. Said: Rursus ☻ 18:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the renaming of this article. Crypto-Calvinism is a historical term and should be respected as such. I have tried to write my contribution in order to respect both sides, but also to describe this controversy without any political tendency from modern Protestant point of view. We simply have to accept that this controversy is part of the history of Protestant Reformation and to treat it as such, being honest about past, trying to understand what happened and why. Some of the external links are Lutheran, some Calvinist, like History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff. Schaff himself was a High Church Calvinist (they have sometimes accused of being crypto-Lutherans!), yet he adheres Calvin's teaching about Lord's Supper in his account of gnesio-Lutherans (which is, by the way, a modern term never used in 16th century). This link is excellent source, which even from Calvinist POV still helps to understand early Lutheranism realistically without some later Lutheran tendencies, when it e.g. informs about question of the eucharistic adoration, called as "bread-worship" by both Philippists and Calvinists.
History of crypto-Calvinist controversy is not simple and needs studying of the facts. It soon becomes evident that the question was about eucharistic theology and that there is a profound difference between Luther's and Melanchthon's later teaching. I agree that a separate article about "gnesio-Lutherans" (not gnesio-Lutheranism) would be needed, because they also took part in other controversies than the Second Sacramentarian controversy and crypto-Calvinism. I may start this article later myself. (Terot (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Bad grammar[edit]

I've tried to clean-up the background paragraph, but I don't want to distort the information as I am not an expert on the subject matter. Could someone please have a look at correcting the bad grammar? ZARguy (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Crypto-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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crypto-Calvinism&oldid=1201258777"