Talk:John Calvin's view of Scripture

Merge with John Calvin?
Probably not. This article is becoming quite long and would upset the balance of the original Calvin page. Am deleting the tag... StAnselm 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should keep the article
 * If you could leave the merge tag there for a bit to promote discussion, that would be useful. I didn't put it back, but someone has done so, so I'm interested in seeing discussion (hopefully a "keep" conclusion).  If there's no discussion in the next week, then go ahead and remove it.
 * --TimNelson 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. The first merge tag was posted while I was writing the article, and I figured that whoever put it there thought the article was going to remain a stub. StAnselm 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the chunky quotations can surely be stripped out? They're already effectively summarised in the text; readers interested in Calvin's original supporting arguments will be able to access them via the references. The resultant, much shorter, text could be merged with the John Calvin article without materially impacting its balance.
 * Also, the current article is probably only ever accessed via links. But, is that a bad thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.30.42 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

title change
Should the title be changed to "John Calvin's view of Scripture" just for all of those novices out there? Likely a few.Brian0324 17:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you're right. StAnselm 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorization
I'm trying to make some sense of the hundreds and hundreds of articles in Category:Christian theology; for instance, I recently moved a number of XX views on Mary to more suitable subcategories. In the same vein I think this article belongs in Category:Calvinism as well as one of the subcategories of Category:Bible; I thought Category:Biblical exegesis but this apparently was either incorrect or objectionable. Suggestions welcome.-choster (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the quotefarm tag from the article. The article is on John Calvin's view of Scripture so obviously there should be a lot of quotes, no? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
Wikipedia does not allow for original research. You cannot quote from the Institutes (a primary source) to tell us what Calvin believed. You must rely on independent secondary sources. Katsa54 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article certainly leans heavily on primary sources, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it. Is there a particular point at which you think the article is drawing its own invalid conclusions about Calvin's thought? StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not about right or wrong. Wikipedia prohibits original research, as you know quite well. You must prove your claims via reliable and independent secondary sources. You have argued in other articles that primary source material must be removed.Katsa54 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which article? Are you talking about the Orthodox Presbyterian Church article? Because I can't recall arguing for the removal of primary source material; for example, the primary source quotations in Orthodox Presbyterian Church are perfectly fine. But you shouldn't be editing this article on the basis of disagreements in that article. And if you have come over to this article merely because I am the creator, that could be construed as WP:HOUNDING. StAnselm (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am just pointing out that you know the policy. There are no exceptions. You can't post original research on WP. You don't seem to contest that this is Original Research. You just seem to want to keep it up anyway. Unfortunately, that is not possible. Katsa54 (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you straight, then - did you come to this article merely because I am the article creator? StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No. I came because I am a Wikipedia editor concerned with preventing Original Research. You have not disputed that this is OR. You just seem to think that this article should be the exception. But that's not how it works. But it is interesting to note that you have no problem deleting others' work, even when they have some secondary sources to possibly back it up. In contrast, this article (with the exception of a single sentence) was 100% original research. Let's all be diligent in making sure that WP policies are applied consistently no matter who the author is. Katsa54 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't allow for five reverts in 9 hours either. If you're going to make changes of that magnitude, discuss them one at a time on the talk page as per WP:BRD.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Original research is banned from Wikipedia. The article isn't bad, but it is based almost entirely on OR. So maybe you could do some secondary research to make it conform to WP policy.Mg3942 (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think both User:Mg3942 and User:Katsa54 misunderstand the concept of original research. (And I note both have been editors for less than a week.) The article does rely a bit too much on primary sources, that's not the same thing. It also means that the article needs more material added, not that material should be deleted. So, please point out the part of WP:OR policy that you think the article goes against. StAnselm (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You are drawing original conclusions based on primary sources. WP's policy is that you not do this. Can you please defend the fact that your article does not rely on secondary sources, but rather has huge block quotes of primary source material with your own conclusions? Until a consensus forms, this material should be removed.

Actually, WPs primary source policy is posted within their policy on OR. So it is part of the same policy. The onus is on you to defend your use of excessive and controversial use of primary sources. You do not mention any of the relevant secondary literature (Sujin Pak, Bruce Gordon, Irena Backus, etc.). Instead you just have a bunch of block quotes. And when you do cite secondary sources, they are from theologians (not historians or historical theologians who are experts on Calvin).

You have not actually defended the paragraphs in question. Instead, you are attacking individual editors. Please make a defense of the paragraphs in question, or drop the matter. Consensus is against you. Mg3942 (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * These sections do not appear to be WP:OR, and there are certainly many secondary references that could be added. Consensus seems to be to retain the material, and I note that User:Katsa54 (the only other user calling for removal) has been blocked. -- 101.119.28.160 (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is to delete. This is not representative of secondary literature on Calvin's use of Scripture. Instead, it is St Anselm's indefensible original research and synthesis.207.207.22.72 (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss putative original research one item at a time.
Various editors are removing thousands of bytes of material per edit with no more justification than a claim of original research in the edit summaries. The conversation on the talk page so far has been nothing more than back and forth generalized accusations. If we are actually to figure out what's happening, we need smaller pieces to work with. It is my personal opinion that all problems with original research have been solved and it's clearly the case that much of the material being removed is cited to secondary sources. Thus I propose that the editors who wish to remove material that's cited to a secondary source (a) do it one piece at a time and (b) explain how the secondary source fails to support the material. Perhaps a new subsection for each item would be nice. I will try to start a couple, but as I said, it's not so easy for me to do it because it's my opinion that the article is in fine shape.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. Several smaller chunks were removed, with comments explaining why. But you and St Anselm undid them all in a single chunk. I happen to have access to the secondary sources, and they do not prove SA's synthesis. This is going to require a redo, not simply adding in phony references to cover up the OR and synthesis. Until a consensus is reached, OR must stay down. 185.29.167.132 (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, here 1.6K removed. that's a big chunk.  Then here 2k removed.  And so on.  As I said, thousands of bytes of material at a time.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I started three sections for civil discussion below. This is about half of the removed material.  Naturally others can start more sections should they see fit, but I'm not willing to put more time into it right now until it starts to look like actual productive discussion is possible.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

John Calvin's view of scripture
There is some feeling that this sentence is OR: John Calvin's view of Scripture can be found mainly in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Now, I don't currently have access to the source, but at least two editors here claim to have. I'm assuming good faith, but perhaps the detractors of this sourced sentence can explain (a) how it might be considered original research, or (b) how it's not supported by the source cited to, or (c) any other policy based reason for removing it.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

'''The source does not say that Calvin's view of Scripture can be found mainly in the Institute. Pure and simple. I have the book right in front of me. What is more, the link that St Anselm provided was for Google Books, page 111. Google Books does not show page 111. This shows that St Anselm is NOT operating in good faith'''. 185.29.167.132 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have the book in front of me, so I have to believe those of you who do. The fact the google books doesn't show p.111 is irrelevant. First, it might show it in Australia given that it's linked to google.com.au and their copyright laws are different.  Your IP doesn't geolocate to Australia, so either you're not in Australia and therefore have no way of knowing, or else you're using a proxy.  If you have the book, and you've read it all, and it doesn't say what  says it says, then fine, the sentence should go out.  Let's wait till StAnselm shows up and maybe he/she will put a quote into the citation so we can judge for ourselves.  Meanwhile, I think the material should stay in because if I have to assume good faith of one editor over another, I'm going to have to choose StAnselm in this particular case, because he/she is being reasonable, whereas you're edit-warring and refusing to be specific.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been very specific. I have read the book. St Anselm has not produced a valid citation. Page 111 begins to explain how Calvin's doctrine of Scripture is presented in Book 1 of the Institutes. The following pages elaborate on this. Nowhere does the author claim that Calvin's doctrine is found mainly in the Institutes. 31.6.19.102 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine. Let's wait for StAnselm to show up and we'll see what he/she has to say about it.  What's the rush?  Are you the same editor as 185 above?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Added another source, this one with a quote. This is really common knowledge, friend.  He explained Scripture in his commentaries and theorized about Scripture in the institutes.  I bet we'll have a dozen sources before we're through.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And another. Do you think the claim is wrong?  Or are you just intent on removing it because it's, in your view, unsourced?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am in Australia. I didn't realise other people wouldn't be able to see p. 111. Anyway, the relevant quote is "Calvin unfolds his doctrine of Scripture in Inst., Book I..." I have added the quote to the article. StAnselm (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires claims to be sourced. The adverb "mainly" is a claim not found in any secondary source that I am aware of. It is not common knowledge. I have read all of Calvin's letters, his catechism, his lectures, and his commentaries. The notion that he "mainly" discussed his view of scripture in the Institutes is just plain wrong. For instance, Sujin Pak has shown the ways in which Calvin discusses a historicized approach to scripture in his commentaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.17.199.213 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Many authors have discussed the conclusions that can be drawn about Calvin's views on various aspects of scripture from his commentaries and other works. I think that what's meant here is that his theoretical ideas on the role of Scripture in Christian theology are mainly to be found in the Institutes.  Perhaps I'm wrong about that, and if it's unclear we can clarify it.  When StAnselm returns, he/she will almost certainly have something valuable to say.  I haven't read Pak.  Are you talking about his book on Calvin and the Psalms?  What in particular does he say that supports your view?  Are you the same IP as the others above?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

First, Pak is not a he. She is a she. You clearly are out of your element here. If SA's claims are truly common knowledge, then it shouldn't be a problem to find a source. If you can't find a source, delete it immediately. You need to source everything. See WP article on whether you need to cite the sky being blue.

Pak argues that Calvin took a theocentric and historicizing view of scripture in contradistinction to Luther and Bucer and 7 prominent medieval theologians, who took a christocentric view. She also argues that you need to read his psalms commentaries to understand his view on scripture.

Look, its real simple. If you have a source, you can make a claim. But you can't cite an unsourced claim that is controversial. None of those sources say that Calvin's view of the Scriptures can be found mainly in the Institutes. FIND A SOURCE OR DELETE IT!!!!!103.17.199.215 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I may well be out of my element here, although whether or not I know Pak's sex isn't especially relevant to that. You may be totally right about Pak's claims and she may be totally right as well, but that doesn't mean that there's not a reasonable interpretation of the sentence that makes both her, the sentence, and the sources the sentence is cited to all correct.  Furthermore, you're kind of out of your element on Wikipedia, where we *talk* about stuff before carrying on vitriolic edit wars.  Now, obviously you're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you, and we ought to just wait for others to show up.  I'd like to hear StAnselm's intention for that sentence so that maybe we can rewrite it so that everyone's happy.  It's my belief, based on sources, that the sentence is meant to convey that Calvin himself intended the Institutes to contain his theoretical as opposed to exegetical views on Scripture.  Is that an unreasonable position?  Is it so clear that that sentence mightn't mean that?  Do the sources not support *that* interpretation of the sentence?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a single one of those sources say that Calvin's "explicit" view of Scripture can be found "mainly" in the Institutes. If you can't find a source that proves your own claim, then it is original research and must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mg3942 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Necessity of scripture
There is some feeling that this passage is OR: Calvin viewed Scripture as necessary in two ways. First, he held that general revelation cannot in itself give us a saving knowledge of God. Although he can be known in some ways through creation he has "added the light of his Word in order that he might make himself known unto salvation." Calvin compares Scripture to being like a pair of spectacles, that enable us to properly interpret what we see in creation: A. First, general revelation cannot in itself give us a saving knowledge of God. As this is Calvin's own view, and it is uncontroversial that he himself held this view, it seems appropriate per WP:SELFSOURCE to cite it to Calvin's own work, as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim and all the other requirements in that guideline are met.

B. Next, Calvin compares Scripture to being like spectacles. This is accompanied by a quote of Calvin talking about this issue, but it's certainly not original research to include it. In fact, its inclusion is properly justified by citation to a secondary source which talks about Calvin's "famous figure of the spectacles." So really, how is there any original research in this passage?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Who is "us" in this sentence? Wikipedia readers? Regardless, if a secondary source does not cite it, it is original research. The lead in sentences draw original conclusions from primary sources'31.6.19.102 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Us" in this case is "the people that Calvin was talking about." Pronouns are notoriously difficult to define in English, and probably every language, but it's clear from the context here that "us" means "the people that Calvin was talking about."  This is common in the academic register of the English language.  As to your second claim that "if a secondary source does not cite it, it is original research" you're just wrong.  There are cases when a subject's own views about their own opinions are self-supporting, see WP:SELFSOURCE, and I believe that this is one of them.  Since you disagree, maybe you can explain why you do instead of just repeating that you do.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So if you're legitimately confused by "us," I changed it to "humanity." How's that?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

St Anselm is not writing in Calvin's voice. This is why it is essential to have secondary sources. S/he is putting forth a position that is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.27.226.47 (talk • contribs)


 * I still don't understand your objection. You seem to think that a perfectly ordinary use of a pronoun is misleading somehow.  What do you find confusing or not neutral about this use of the word "us"?  also, this is the first time claims of non-neutrality have been advanced.  Previously it was all about original research.  Please do explain what you find non-neutral about this use of the pronoun, and I'm sure it will be easy to find a compromise here.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding errors in oral transmission
The next disputed passage has to do with Calvin's position that Scripture is necessary to prevent errors inherent in oral transmission. While the editors claiming original research have allowed this passage to remain: Second, Calvin held that inscripturation is necessary to avoid the errors inherent in oral transmission:

They have removed the quote from Calvin that follows it: For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. Now, since this is part of a wholesale deletion with no justification other than edit summaries claiming original research, one must suppose that that's the putative reason for the removal of the quote from Calvin illustrating the evidently acceptable sentence before it. But it is manifest that the quote illustrates the point that the author of the secondary source cited above undisputedly says he's making. How then is the inclusion of this quote original research? Maybe there's some other reason for deleting it, but it being original research seems unsupportable to me. Thoughts?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Doctrine of scripture
Welcome back ! I noticed that the quote you just added to the source is specifically about Calvin's "doctrine of Scripture." I thought that that's what you were talking about here. I wonder what you and others might think about moving the article to "John Calvin's doctrine of Scripture," since it would make the task of clear sourcing much easier. I'd been worried that the supporting quotes I was putting in were subject to misinterpretation due to the fact that "view" is a more general word with other meanings, whereas "Calvin's doctrine of Scripture" is a technical term that's widely used in the literature.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've just gotten out of bed. Yes, I would have no problems with a page move. I guess using the word "doctrine" would raise issues such as whether he believed in inerrancy, something which has been debated over the years. This article is far from comprehensive - I started it six years ago, and then just left it. I guess the advantage of "view" is that it can focus on Calvin's distinctives, whereas an article on his "doctrine" would perhaps end up looking like a more general Protestant doctrine of Scripture. Actually, there doesn't seem to be any overview articles on a Christian theology of the Bible. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the more I think of it, "doctrine" would be reserved in article title for movements and denominations - individuals would have a "view". StAnselm (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know, see here. I know that ghits aren't dispositive, but this does seem to be a widely used name for the subject of this article.  If we keep "view" when we mean "structured theory" or something like that, it leaves us continually open to the argument made above, that he did express views on Scripture in many of his works.  If we change to "doctrine" to clarify that we're talking about his systematic theory of Scripture rather than that sense of his ideas which may be synthesized from his unsystematic remarks, we may avoid a great deal of confusion.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I appreciate that argument. Though nobody has made the aforesaid objection in six years. Your search gives 1110 ghits, "Calvin's view of scripture" gives 787. That's not a big difference. There is, for example Donald K. McKim, “Calvin's View of Scripture,” in Readings in Calvin's Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984). StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I'm going to spend a little time working on a descriptive sentence or two to add to the lead, anyway.  Even though the circumstances which brought this article back up under the spotlight are regrettable, there's no reason not to take the opportunity to work it up a little.  I won't move it unless others weigh in supporting the idea.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

More edit-warring
For the record, I oppose the recent edits by Mg3942. I also note that Mg3942 has repeatedly removed well-sourced material. The citation to Allison, Gregg (Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Zondervan, 2011, ISBN 031041041X, p. 133) has still not been restored. -- 101.119.28.55 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you put up a diff for the specific thing you're talking about? Thanks,&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

2nd sentence of lead
Regarding this edit. Perhaps those editors claiming that the sources do not support the wording could explain why they feel this way?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to a neutral, non-controversial sentence. The onus is on those posters who want to keep it as it is to produce a sentence or paragraph in any of their citations that support their wording. They have not done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.218.60.174 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, you're not going to convince anyone if you keep arguing by assertion. How is it that you don't think that the sources cited support the sentence?  It seems to both me and  that they do.  We can't make progress if you won't give an explicit account of what your problem with the sentence and its sources is.  Also, could you try to remember to log in, because your IP address changes constantly and it's hard to be sure who we're talking with.  And if you don't mind, can you think about indenting your responses to preserve threading?  It makes the conversation much easier to follow.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Calvin's view of Scripture. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428181856/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.i.ix.html to http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iv.i.ix.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)