Talk:Crypto-Calvinism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Crypto-Calvinism is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Crypto-Calvinism 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.
|
|
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-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.) |
|
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Bias
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.
[edit] NPOV dispute
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.
- 2nd chapter: Hints that Martin Luther was some way almost in favour of crypto-Calvinism. One of the Luther's main concerns was to defend doctrine of Real Presence. His book Confession Concerning Christ's Supper is against Swiss reformers.
- 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))
- 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)
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))
[edit] Crypto-Calvinism
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)
[edit] Cleanup request
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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Requested move
As per previous section Cleanup request, last paragraph by me, myself and my darned ego. Said: Rursus ☻ 18:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
