Talk:Moderate Calvinism

I put the last two paraphs into a ctricisim heading as they are not really descriptive. I think there should be more added to describe this topic so that the criticism doesn't have a 2:1 ratio over everything else. --Kraftlos (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased point of view in the article
Does the definition of Calvinism actually mean something different from the definition of Arminianism? If yes, then equating "moderate Calvinism" with "moderate Arminianism" is blatant biased doubletalk. Reliable sources describe Arminianism variations such as classic Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism, but do not include "moderate Arminianism." Reliable sources also describe "moderate Calvinism" and "4 point Calvinism" as variations within Calvinism and not "something else" outside of it. Lamorak (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is clearly written by a "moderate calvinist" How can the traditional and mainstream definition of a view be considered the EXTREME. this article is absurd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.110.128 (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation
The criticism section contains the accurate definition of moderate Calvinism (rejection of unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace with modified versions of the classical Calvinist doctrines of total depravity and perseverance of the saints). The body of the article is just plain wrong because it claims that moderate Calvinism is, in fact, Amyraldism. Moderate Calvinism is NOT four-point Calvinism. Even with this inaccurate definition, the author claims that theologians such as Charles Spurgeon rejected the doctrine of limited atonement, which is absolutely ludicrous! Spurgeon, though a Baptist, was a staunch, Dordt-abiding, traditional Calvinist. I understand that the criticism section should not be larger than the main section, but even that is better than filling the article with falsehoods. 206.74.228.156 (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This Article Needs To Be Fixed
1. What this article is calling a four point Calvinism or Moderate Calvinism is nothing more than Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved and is not Calvinism of any sort at all. What this article calls Extreme Calvinism is just Historical Calvinism.

2. Wikipediw (talk) edited the article and added "supralapsarianism" and "On the other hand, clasical calvinism teaches the infralapsarian view, that it is not indeed extreme calvinism." to make this sentence.

"Extreme Calvinism (supralapsarianism) teaches double predestination, that is, God predestines those who will be saved and those who will be lost. On the other hand, clasical calvinism teaches the infralapsarian view, so it is not indeed extreme calvinism:".

Here is [[User:Wikipediw|Wikipediw] edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moderate_Calvinism&diff=330219131&oldid=329805215

Those that hold to both Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism can hold to double predestiantion. The Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism difference has to do with whether God's decrees of election and reprobation was pre-fall or post-fall.

I think this article is a completely wrong and needs to be rewritten. --Bobmutch (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You Gotta Be Kidding
It is 90% inaccurate, absolutely and obviously POV, and looks like it was written by a sixth grader. This article makes my face hurt. It desperately need to be rewritten, i.e., ENTIRELY rewritten, or simply deleted to put it out of its misery. 206.74.228.156 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've cleaned up the article per the above comments. Please discuss any possible restoration of content here first. StAnselm (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)