Talk:Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
|
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Asa Mahan
In my latest edits to the section Studies in Religious Experience, I made a link to Asa Mahan (1800-1889). He was the first president of Oberlin College (1835-1850). As yet, there is no Wikipedia article on him. DFH 14:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs work
This article has a few problems, most notably some para-POV phrasing (not too bad, though). There are also some grammatical aberrations. --Whiteknox 15:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Assorted to-do's
- In the following quotation, the meaning of "churchmanship" needs to be explained.--Whiteknox 22:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Unlike his contemporaries at Princeton, and perhaps due to his invalid wife, Warfield never cared much for churchmanship.
[edit] References
It is very difficult to find good historical information on Warfield. Unfortunately there are no biographies of Warfield; I was interested to discover the PhD. theses cited at the end of this article. There is a biographical sketch included at the beginning of the ten-volume "The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield" published by Oxford University Press which I am relying on heavily for edits made to this page. --Whiteknox 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine. As long as you're doing it, be sure to cite your sources. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Change name of section
The section "Early life" should be changed, perhaps to "Lineage and early life", in my opinion. It mostly covers notable ancestors and relatives. Perhaps another section should be created for the descendants of Warfield which are mentioned in this section. Does anybody else agree? --Whiteknox 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Be bold, and make it so! --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like to make changes unless someone else agrees with me, especially because I am fairly new to Wikipedia and haven't had a great deal of time to read over all of the policies. I guess that kind of contradicts WP:BOLD, though. --Whiteknox 19:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Darwinism section is not entirely accurate
The following is written under the "Darwinism" section:
- Warfield had an unusual view of Darwinism for a conservative in his day.
Many conservative theologians of the time (including Charles and A. A. Hodge, Cyrus Scofield, and William Jennings Bryan) were not six-day creationists. I can't remember if any of those were theistic evolutionists, but I do know that six-day creationism was very rare. Not until Henry Morris and ICR did six-day creationism revive. I don't think that theistic evolutionism was a rare opinion for conservatives in that day. --Whiteknox 15:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to see some reliable source(s) cited on this point. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Reference added and section reworded. Whiteknox is quite right. Darwin had more trouble with fellow scientists than Victorian Christianity. 84.92.241.186 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] More on Darwinism
An anon added this to the article, but it should have been placed here:
- This section doesn't quite seem to match up with Warfield's own explanation of his views on the subject. Although one could argue he believed in the possibility of some type of evolution, it wasn't Darwin's, and it couldn't apply to humans. Strongly suggest this be revised or stricken.207.140.171.5
My response: Please be bold and revise it. Supplying some reliable sources for the revisions would make it more likely that your changes would stick. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
