Talk:Free offer of the gospel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Free offer of the gospel 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.
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-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. | |
[edit] POV
This article is not neutral as written, particularly in its assertions and phrasing. AFAICT, only a few micro-Reformed denoms deny the "free offer", so there may be issues with undue weight. Also the Murray quote is too long and wordy. It needs to be trimmed and/or summarized, or else removed. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes. Do you approve of the changes? Brandonadams (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- You need to do a lot more work to fix it up. Flex was being very nice not to delete your additions immediately. You've introduced unreferenced material, contradicted the Hyper-Calvinism article, and made it sound like Calvinists are equally divided on this matter. If you want this material to stay, you need to demonstrate that the strain of thought you refer to is notable within Calvinism. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and you'll need to demonstrate a difference between general call and free offer. That is, referenced with a quotation from Hoeksema, or someone. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notes, I haven't done much on wiki before. Where specifically did I contradict the Hyper-Calvinism article so I can correct my mistake? Is the quote from Engelsma sufficient, or does it not clearly delineate enough? Thanks. Brandonadams (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
