Talk:Reprobation

Expansion request
The first paragraph there is confusing "reprobation" with "double-predestination" (a facet of hyper-calvinism).

I added a request for expansion. This is an important theological topic for the understanding of Calvinism which, though I don't agree with all of it, is surely one of the great schools of Christian thought. The page needs work! KHM03 19:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've taken a shot at expansion by adding explanation from Boettner which I feel is helpful and to the point. I also added some external links and a few internal wiki-links.  It's a start.  Regards, Jim Ellis July 6, 2005 19:25 (UTC)


 * First paragraph fixed a bit due to above complaints. I agree that this is often confused with hyper-Calvinism. Obiwanjacoby (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I added some "opposition" material, though it is pretty much just Wesley. At some point, I will need to add (or someone will need to add) Biblical passages and perspectives from other theologians & traditions. It's a start, at any rate. KHM03 17:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe "opposition material" is appropriate here, as it does nothing to clarify reprobation. Perhaps your talents could be used over on the holocaust page to sum up the neo-Nazis' denial. Your addition would be rather like me vandalizing the Wesley page using this page as a source, as well as the election page to show valid opposition to Wesley's heresies.This opposition should be removed, and your proselytizing be limited to the methodist pages.12.214.209.168 23:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate to include a summary of Christian criticisms of reprobation on a page devoted to this subject. It is no more 'proselytizing' than presenting the definition of reprobation is 'evangelizing' for Calvinism. My one suggestion would be that alternatives to a Wesleyan view should be presented, and there is plenty of material in the history of the Church before Wesley or Arminius to support this - the early Church Fathers, for example. 131.111.220.6 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Further developments
IMHO, this section is irredeemable. It misunderstands both double predestination and hyper-calvinism. It contradicts the Predestination (Calvinism) article. Considering the current errors, it needs to be deleted: The rest is lifted straight from R. C. Sproul, but his article is referred to in Predestination (Calvinism), anyway. The whole thing's got to go. StAnselm 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination - if it's used like that, that would be erroneous
 * Such a view makes God the author of sin - that's debatable
 * universally rejected by Reformed thinkers - no citation

9/11 reference seems to not fit.
The reference of Bush's statement about 9/11 hijackers doesn't fit the context of a reprobate, because the hijackers felt they were doing a noble deed by the standards of their world. Of course in our world it's heinous and senseless, but that has little bearing on the mindset of the perpetrators. I just thought I'd explain why I removed it. Cheers!Batvette (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Reprobation before Calvin
Reprobation was discussed centuries before Calvin. This article needs to take stock of that fact. I would do it, but it's not going to happen any time soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.75.129 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)