Talk:Double predestination

NPOV

I added the {{npov}} tag because of passages like this:

Single predestination Calvinists usually argue that God didn't actually hardened Pharaoh's heart, but let him harden his own heart, or that God hardened Pharaoh's heart after Pharaoh first hardened his heart.

But Paul (interpreting with apostolic authority) sees that God unconditionally hardened Pharaoh in the OT. That's why he concludes "so then" God hardens whom He desires (otherwise it would be God hardens those who harden themselves).

If God didn't unconditionally hardened Pharaoh's heart, then Paul interpreted the OT incorrectly and everything that he says following it are all wrong.

The Wikipedia cannot take sides on such disputed issues like it does here. See WP:NPOV and WP:OR#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Single predestination Calvinists usually argue that God didn't actually hardened Pharaoh's heart, but let him harden his own heart, or that God hardened Pharaoh's heart after Pharaoh first hardened his heart."

• They do, ex. John Macarthur, various commentaries.

"But Paul (interpreting with apostolic authority) sees that God unconditionally hardened Pharaoh in the OT. That's why he concludes "so then" God hardens whom He desires (otherwise it would be God hardens those who harden themselves)."

• what Paul wrote is inspired (that's why I mentioned "Evangelical" belief), his interpretation of OT included. "so then" is right in the text (its verifiable) that's why I added doubleqoutes.

"If God didn't unconditionally hardened Pharaoh's heart, then Paul interpreted the OT incorrectly and everything that he says following it are all wrong."

• Because he says it plainly, its in the text, that's why I qouted the verse, if I didn't qoute the verse then it would be original research.

"The Wikipedia cannot take sides on such disputed issues like it does here. See WP:NPOV and WP:OR#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources."

• I'm not taking sides because its under the section "Biblical Basis", if someone wants to add a "Critisms" section do can do that. Just like the numerous sections in many articles dedicated to defending a view of the article (just like the Predestination (Calvinism) is pro Calvinist view of predestination.) Also, if someone wants to add a critic of double Predestination in the main section they can also do that. You are being unfair because you disagree with Double Predestination... you can always add those section yourself instead of bullying me with NPOV tag (I'm just being honest).

Avielh 17:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph merely needs some citations. It is not inherently non-neutral.

The second paragraph states that SPers are in conflict with Paul; covertly identifies "biblical inspiration" with "apostolic authority", which is by no means an accepted proposition; states that Paul was inspired (the Wikipedia can't state that objectively as if it were an accepted fact, even if this is in the context of a doctrine held by folks who largely accept a traditional view of biblical inspiration); and attributes motives to the Biblical writer. It's the objective tone here more than the actual content. It needs to be more qualified (see below). Add to that that non-Christians don't know Paul wrote Romans or that OT = Old Testament. We write for the general public, not Christians who understand Christianese. Also, pronouns referring to deities should not be capitalized outside of direct quotations (cf. WP:MOS#Religions.2C_deities.2C_philosophies.2C_doctrines.2C_and_their_adherents).

The third paragraph presents as though it were accepted fact an interpretation of this passage that SPers would surely dispute. The Wikipedia cannot take sides and say that one interpreter is right and the other is wrong like you have done here.

A neutral way to write this text might be something like:

Calvinists who hold to single predestination argue that God didn't actually hardened Pharaoh's heart, but let him harden his own heart, or that God hardened Pharaoh's heart after Pharaoh first hardened his heart.^{{footnote to one or more SPers saying exactly this}}

Advocates of double predestination, however, understand the text to mean that God unconditionally hardened Pharaoh's heart. John Piper says, "The phrase 'so then' [in Rom. 9:16] requires that God actually hardens whomever he desires to harden. Otherwise the sense of this passage focused on God's sovereignty is lost because he would only harden those who meet some condition external to himself."^{{citation to this [fabricated] quote}}

Re your last paragraph: you are taking sides because you are trying to prove something right (or someone wrong) rather than laying the matter out with an objective tone.

Again, you need to read and abide by WP:OR and WP:NPOV. If you think I'm out to lunch, you can ask for the third opinion here. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, its not taking sides because its under "Biblical Basis (in favor of)" section, readers expect that the section is supportive of it, anyone can write a "criticism" (isthat the right spelling-I keep mispelling that word!) section and devote it entirely to disproving DP, as they do in many many many many many articles on wikipedia. They can also counter it directly by contributing in the main article.

Also I can qoute bible verses directly, because those are verifiable documents, Paul actually wrote Romans, so I can say Paul said "so then" and people can check if Paul actually said (wrote) it. Nobody writes supporting bible verses by qouting other persons qouting those verses. And even if I qoute Piper qouting a verse, who is to say that my interpretation of Piper's qoute is correct or biased (*ahem*, *ahem*, just like Calvin)... then I have to qoute someone qouting Piper, qouting Paul... it's just endless.

I'm not implying that Paul was inspired, but his writting is (including his written interpretations of OT passages)... but I guess I could change that, it could be misleading...butI'm out of time, I'll think about it - or just change it yourself instead of bugging me : )

Avielh unsigned, Sept 25, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.87.247 (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Because we seem to be at an impasse, I will ask for a third opinion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion(?)

Flex is right. User:Krator (t c) 11:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does your edit summary say this is not a third opinion? --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aw, man. Ok, I'll change it, but it'll probably take some time (and analyzation) to include all those verses by pointing out who is actually refering to them... but I still think its ridiculous because the bible verses are the primary source documents in Christian theology. Avielh 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, the problem is not listing verses so much as the tone and the way the article is written. It needs to be an article summing up accepted knowledge based on reliable sources, not a theological tract or a biblical commentary or sermon. Before you make any changes, be sure to read the guidelines and policies I referred you to above. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If you don't mind my chiming in here, I also would encourage Avielh to listen to what Flex is saying about encyclopedic writing. You sound quite knowledgeable and enthusiastic, which means you have much to contribute here, it's just that we are trying to strike a particular tone and approach here. In addition, you should realize that we aren't writing the encyclopedia based on our own understandings of primary sources (especially not one as exegetically contested as the Bible). Instead, the articles should be based no secondary sources, the more academic and peer-reviewed the better. That's why Wikipedia is a "tertiary" source of knowledge. See WP:RS and WP:V. Please let me know if this is helpful, thanks! Good luck. HG | Talk 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ok. Avielh 14:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of double predestination

I read the MacArthur article, the R. C. Sproul article, Francis Turretin (in the quotes in Sproul), Loraine Boettner's section on reprobation in Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology (here and here), and Louis Berkhof's treatment. All (except perhaps MacArthur) use the language of passing over and yet affirm the positive content of reprobation. Berkhof says reprobation consists of two elements: preterition (passing over) and condemnation. The cause of the former is hidden in the secret counsel of God, while the cause of the latter is sin, and the former is passive, while the latter is active. This does not seem to be in harmony with what you say in the introduction. Moreover, how can you classify the Sproul article as single predestinarian? Berkhof cites R. L. Dabney as rejecting the second part of reprobation. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's because I read or hear reformed persons or people claiming to be supportive of the "Reformed" position then say they don't support "Double Predestination". Also, Sproul seemed to be attacking Double Predestination, but you're right, he was attacking hyper-calvinist double predestination because all calvinists in a sense believe in double predestination.

I'd like to change this into a disambiguation page, which points to either "Predestination (Calvinism)" or "Double Predestination (Hyper-calvinism)", Is it ok to just move it like that ? because I don't know what will happen to the tags and talk page.

Avielh 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You can just move it, and the history and talk pages will follow, or replace all the text with a redirect, and the current history and talk page will remain available at the same place. Let me suggest that you merge any uncovered content to Predestination (Calvinism) and redirect there. Any information that could go to a new article on Double predestination (Hyper-Calvinism) should probably go into the article on Hyper-Calvinism until the length of the section there warrants branching off a new article (see WP:SUMMARY). --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for 3O

Hi all, it appears from reading the talk page your request for third opinion is no longer needed, and I have removed the listing. If I've done this prematurely, or if another dispute arises, please use the dispute resolution process again. -Jaredbelch 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)