Talk:Predestination

Non-NPOV in Christianity section

The subsection "Biblical support of predestination" states "Some Biblical verses often used as sources for Christian beliefs in predestination are below. Note that most of these verses do not distinguish between the conditional election (Arminian) and unconditional election (Calvinist), but are simply evidence of some type of election".

The subsection "Biblical support of free will" states "It is evident from the Biblical scriptures that God creates options that humans can choose; our ability to have chosen another option is essential to God caring about the choice that we make (and His particular absolute, more than temporal, unchanging, eternal judgement of that choice)".

This looks non-NPOV to me, as it seems to impy that the "Biblical support of free will" is the correct interpretation of the scripture. (And indeed, that God exists and the Bible is true). Iapetus (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that last bit especially was blatantly POV, and I have removed it. StAnselm (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Pagan predestination

It's worth a mention that several pagan religions believed that humans' fates are out of their hands. In Greek mythology, for example, the three Fates determine when someone is born, what "path" their life will take, and how long it'll be before humans die. Even the gods were subject to fate, though not nearly to the same extent. Germanic paganism holds a similar view. SorcererCallandira2 (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)SorcererCallandira2

The lead defines the subject of the article as "the doctrine that all events have been willed by God," so I don't see much relevance for what you describe. --JFH (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"In Yoruba mythology, it is also believed that the issue of predestination hold firmly a traditional/spiritual opinion relating to the creation of human race by the supreme being (God). It is argued that all human being has chosen hes or her destiny from the supreme being call "Olodumare" in Yoruba mythology and as such acting in accordance to what destiny has been chosen, which in a large extent cannot by any means whatsoever be changed. Thus this conception is then opened to criticism to determine the wrongness or the rightness of whatever course of action exhibited by human being since he or she is only acting in accordance to what has been chosen by him." 11:24. 8 September 2014 (IPOOLA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipoolawunmi (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but a great part of this article is beside the point

Sorry, but a great part of this article is beside the point, including the very first sentence. No, predestination is not "the doctrine that all events have been willed by God". No one has ever used the word in this way. There exist such a doctrine indeed, and it has the precise name "Providence", and has never been called anything else. Predestination, on the other hand, means Providence in so far it concerns the fact that people finally go to Heaven. "Predestination" has never been used in any other sense than meaning this eternal fate. Nor is this doctrine specifically Calvinistic, at best, it should be said somewhere in the body of the article, not the introduction, that it tends to be associated with Calvinism. The decisive doctrine of Calvinism in this matter is "positive reprobation ante praevisa merita". Calvin himself saw no difference there, which is why he taught it, but that is neither neutral point of view nor - I'm Catholic, as you guessed - the right point of view.--77.4.46.200 (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Standard Bible Usage

I wonder if it might be good to use the same bible version in all of the quoted verses supporting predestination and free will. I noticed that verses from many different bibles are used, and it might help if they were all from the same bible. (I prefer the KJV, so I would love to see all of the verses in that format, but that's just me.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsy Danger Dynamite (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Almost all translations since the AV 1611 or King James Version laud and compare themselves to the AV it would seem most appropriate that the AV should be the base to make reference to biblical quotes. At the very least all biblical quotations should state the version used.--Dpaulw (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Does it make sense to refocus this article around Christianity?

It seems like Predestination is usually used specifically in Christianity, and there are simply some "related concepts" in other religions. A See also link, or a brief "similar concepts in other religions" section seems like it should suffice here. The categories certainly suggest this is mostly about Christianity... it'd enable the "this is all about Christianity" tag to be removed, as the article could simply explicitly be about just that. SnowFire (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally like that idea. It might be best if predestination is handled by each religion separately instead of together. By the way, you were right to revert my edit. This article is dealing only with theology.Gypsy Danger Dynamite (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Split out Christianity

Responding to the above, I don't think it's workable to say "Predestination" will be just about Christianity when the Islam article is called Predestination in Islam and "predestination in Judaism" returns lots of Google hits. It appears that predestination is an important facet of Islam, though I am not an expert. My proposal is to keep the article as a broad concept article, but split the current Christianity content to Predestination in Christianity. The Christianity section of this page will be WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. --JFH (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Predestination. 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/20060830203834/http://sichosinenglish.org/books/ethics/03-15.htm to http://sichosinenglish.org/books/ethics/03-15.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus, in giving more weight to English-language sources in determining WP:PTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME, is that readers expect the Christian concept when searching for "predestination". (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Predestination → Predestination in Christianity – The concept of "predestination" occurs in multiple religions, it is not exclusive to Christianity. We already have an article on Predestination in Islam. Although Christian and Muslim beliefs on this topic are not identical, you can find a lot of scholarly literature in comparative religion, etc, comparing and contrasting their respective beliefs on the same topic (see e.g. Google Scholar). There are also comparable beliefs in other religions (such as the ancient Greek belief in Moirai) and some work in comparative religion has compared those beliefs to Christian/Islamic concepts of predestination as well.

Therefore I propose the main article, Predestination, should consider the concept of "predestination" from a comparative religions viewpoint, providing a brief overview of the views (or range of views) in each religion on this issue, and relying on those scholarly sources which discuss the similarities and differences between doctrines of predestination in Christianity, Islam, and other religions. And then we can have sub-articles Predestination in Christianity and Predestination in Islam to cover each of those religion's views on this topic in more detail. (There is probably not enough material to support such an article for any other religion at present, but that could always change if someone found sufficient sources to set up such an article for a different religion). This would require deleting the existing redirect Predestination in Christianity to here (which I assume requires administrator assistance), and then after moving this article to Predestination in Christianity we can create a stub here for Predestination across multiple religions, and then we can work on fleshing out that stub into a proper article.

The current situation, where we have an article called plain Predestination about Christianity, and one called Predestination in Islam about Islam, is not treating Christianity and Islam equally, it is a Christian-centric approach. (I'm not suggesting there has been any deliberate intention here by anyone to treat the two religions unequally–sometimes these situations can just happen by accident.) Mr248 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support move. A similar situation occurred when I created the article on the Attributes of God and it was moved to Attributes of God in Christianity. StAnselm (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Good idea. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. ---Telikalive (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Do we have any information about the relative prominence of this concept within each religion? In other words, do we have any evidence that there is no WP:PTOPIC? BilledMammal (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  BilledMammal, I doubt you'll find reliable sources arguing that the topic is more important in one religion than the other. In both religions the topic is subject to significant internal debate and disagreement among branches/denominations/sects. Some may venture a subjective opinion that it is more "prominent" than in one than the other, but I don't think any such subjective opinions are a reliable basis for deciding on a WP:PTOPIC. Mr248 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  When I mention WP:PTOPIC, we're not considering it for "prominence" or "importance" within Christianity or Islam, but global prominence. Specifically, I would be considering this "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" criteria of WP:PTOPIC. I just had a look myself, and so far the evidence is that the concept in Christianity is primary, based on page views in Wikipedia, positioning in Google and Bing search results, the Britannica article under the title "predestination", and the articles first presented when searching academic databases like JSTOR. I would note that I am also not confident that the term "predestination" is used in Islam as it is a non-literal translation of "qadar" - this could explain the disparity. BilledMammal (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think avoiding WP:BIAS (or even its appearance) in how Wikipedia treats the world's two largest religions is more important than giving preference to the religion which uses the English word more commonly. Obviously you will find English language sources using "Predestination" far more often in a Christian context than Muslim one, since there are far more English-speaking Christians in the world than English-speaking Muslims. (If this were Arabic Wikipedia the situation would be the opposite). Also, moving this article leaves us room for an article comparing the concept of Predestination across multiple religions, which is a topic for which reliable sources in comparative religion exist (certainly for comparing Christian and Islamic views of predestination), whereas we don't have an obvious place for that content to go right now, unless we add it to this article. Given right now this article is all about Christianity, I think it makes more sense to have one article for comparative religion and a separate one with more details on Christianity, rather than trying to squeeze both of those into this same article. Mr248 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  If there is no primary topic, then an article on comparative religion would be appropriate here. However, if there is a primary topic, then I don't believe we should be overriding policy for the sake of appearances. It's also worth mentioning that PTOPIC, like COMMONNAME, is dependent on reliable English sources, and so even if the term dominates in Arabic sources, that doesn't change the situation - though I am not sure it does dominate. You use the example of the Arabic Wikipedia, but for the concept in Islam the Arabic Wikipedia puts it at "Destiny" (قدر) not "Predestination" (جبر). As such, for the moment I have to oppose. BilledMammal (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  BilledMammal, They aren't really two different topics though, which is why I don't think PTOPIC applies here. In both Christianity and Islam, "predestination" means the belief that God determines what events will happen in the universe and human history and our individual lives and choices from the very beginning of time (or even from outside of time altogether). They aren't really two different topics, they are one and the same topic approached by two different religions. Of course the debate on that topic in the two religions differs in a lot of ways – much of the Christian debate revolves around how to interpret Bible passages which some Christians view as teaching predestination, while the equivalent Muslim debate of course focuses on the Quran and hadith instead – but at the same time there are lots of parallels between those debates, on which topic see for example doi:10.1111/j.1741-2005.2009.01341.x (also available at JSTOR 43251500). Or see also doi:10.1111/amet.12341 which examines the sociologist Max Weber's famous theory that the Calvinist belief in predestination influenced the development of capitalism, and questions whether Weber's theory has any applicability to Islamic belief in predestination as well – a question which Weber himself had already addressed, but the author disagrees with Weber's position arguing that it was based on misconceptions of Islam. It makes no sense, if we have a generic concept X which occurs across at least two religions, to have the plain X article be about it in one of those religions, and relegate discussion of the concept in general to some kind of "X (comparative religion)" article, just because (in English) discussions of X in one of those religions specifically outnumbers discussions of it in general or in the other. I don't think PTOPIC was ever meant to encourage elevating a subtopic above the overarching topic just because the subtopic receives more attention than the overarching topic does. Mr248 (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  To address your post in reverse order; I do believe that PTOPIC was meant to do exactly that. For example, look at the redirect from Able Archer to Able Archer 83 rather than Exercise Able Archer; per WP:PLA, readers entering Able Archer expects to find the most notable exercise, rather than the overarching concept. Other examples include Gladstone and Augustus. Perhaps this doesn't make sense (though I believe it does), but I think the place to discuss this is in a proposal to change PTOPIC, not here.

I would also disagree that there aren't two topics; I believe there are three; Predestination in Christianity, Destiny in Islam (to use Arabic term), and the overlap between the two. Any of these could be the primary topic, and from the evidence I have seen, the first is. BilledMammal (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "Destiny in Islam (to use Arabic term)" – the Arabic term is not "Destiny", it is قدر qadar; "predestination" and "destiny" are two alternative translations of it. If you look at the scholarly literature, both English words are used to translate the Arabic word roughly equally, there doesn't appear to be a clear preference for one over the other. I still think WP:BIAS is more important here than WP:PTOPIC. Nobody is going to think that Wikipedia is biased for or against anyone's religion or culture by privileging Able Archer 83 over Exercise Able Archer; privileging an article about a concept in Christianity over the article about that concept across multiple religions is going to create an impression of bias towards Christianity and against those other religions. I also don't think WP:PLA supports making Predestination in Christianity the primary topic. Nobody looking for an article on a religious concept would be astonished to find an article telling them that the concept exists in multiple religions, including an article section briefly summarising Christian views in particular, and a hatnote in that section pointing to an "X in Christianity" article which covers those views in elaborate detail. Able Archer 83 is different from Exercise Able Archer in that the former is in some objective sense more interesting to the average human being than the later – the later is about a series of regular military exercises (military exercises, even multinational ones, are a dime-a-dozen); the former is about the one time a military exercise almost accidentally started World War III. By contrast, you can't say that in an objective sense "Predestination in Christianity" is more interesting than "Predestination in Islam". Saying that involves cultural or religious bias; saying Able Archer 83 is more interesting than Exercise Able Archer doesn't. Mr248 (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe "destiny" is the literal translation, "predestination" is an alternative, non-literal translation.

In terms of WP:BIAS, while it is an essay that raises some very important points, we have to remember that an essay is all that it is - and per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS we cannot override WP:PTOPIC on the basis of it. Instead we would need to alter PTOPIC, and this is not the right forum to do so.

To finish off, I would like to note that I am not saying one is more "interesting" than the other; I am saying that one, per PTOPIC and the evidence I have found, is the primary topic. Indeed, whether it is "interesting" or not is irrelevant; just as "it is interesting" isn't a suitable argument for AfD, it's not a suitable argument for the primary topic. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal, I believe "destiny" is the literal translation, "predestination" is an alternative, non-literal translation => do you have a reliable source for that claim? I don't agree that "destiny" is a "literal translation" and "predestination" is a "non-literal translation". I have never seen any such claim in the scholarly literature on Islam.

I still don't agree with you about how PTOPIC should apply here, but rather than debate that issue further, I will leave it to other editors to comment upon. Mr248 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. But to be clear, when you say I still don't agree with you about how PTOPIC should apply here, perhaps I've missed it but I haven't seen you presenting an argument that the topic in comparative religion is the primary topic, and that we should set PTOPIC aside as you think avoiding WP:BIAS (or even its appearance) ... is more important. Is this correct, or have I misunderstood your position? BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

BilledMammal, What is the evidence you have to justify the claim that "Predestination in Christianity" is a more primary topic than "Predestination in Islam" or "Predestination across all religions"?

WP:PTOPIC gives two main criteria: (1) usage; (2) long-term significance.

I don't see how one could argue that "Predestination in Christianity" has greater long-term significance than "Predestination in Islam" or "Predestination across all religions". Both Christianity and Islam have been around for many centuries, and both have been debating and discussing this topic for many centuries, so I don't see how we can seriously argue the topic has more long-term significance in one than the other.

Regarding usage, I'm not convinced that it is it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. We have no hard data on whether any given reader searching for "Predestination" is looking for information on Christianity only, or information on Islam only, or information on both equally. Even if you are going to argue that more people want to know about "Predestination" in Christianity than Islam, "much more likely" is a high bar to reach, and I don't see any hard evidence it is met in this case.

The interaction between WP:BIAS and WP:PTOPIC is another issue; I should note that WP:PTOPIC does say that "we are trying to build an encyclopedia that is untainted by systemic bias" so I will say that considerations of systemic bias are relevant to deciding what the PTOPIC is. Mr248 (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that long term significance is probably similar, but fortunately we have a second characteristic that acts as a tie-breaker; usage. And for that, I have presented my evidence above. In any case, thank you for clarifying. BilledMammal (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As the discussion above has become quite lengthy, I thought it would be best for me to state my position, informed by the previous discussion. Specifically, I oppose this proposed move, on the grounds of WP:PTOPIC (A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term., per this statement I made above: I just had a look myself, and so far the evidence is that the concept in Christianity is primary, based on page views in Wikipedia, positioning in Google and Bing search results, the Britannica article under the title "predestination", and the articles first presented when searching academic databases like JSTOR. Mr248 did point out that this was a result of an English search, but PTOPIC, like COMMONNAME, looks at English Reliable Sources. They also pointed out that there are two components to PTOPIC, with long term significance being the other one, but as long term significance is likely comparable I believe usage serves as an effective "tie-breaker". BilledMammal (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  BilledMammal, Are "page views in Wikipedia" or "positioning in Google and Bing search results" actually sufficient to demonstrate that if a user is looking for information on "predestination", it is much more likely that they are looking for information on predestination in Christianity than predestination in Islam? I don't see how you can infer whether the average reader would prefer to know about predestination in Christianity or in Islam or in both from which article gets the most page views, or from positioning in Google or Bing results. Page views are a circular measure – does "Predestination" get more page views than "Predestination in Islam" because the average reader is more interested in Christian views than in Islamic ones, or is that simply an artefact of the Christianity article being the main one? There is no way to really tell.

  Even if it is true that the average reader is more interested in the concept in Christianity than the concept in Islam, the standard isn't just more likely, the standard is much more likely, and I don't see how the kinds of evidence you are putting forward can meet that higher standard.

  And no doubt it is true that there are a greater number of English language reliable sources discussing "predestination in Christianity" than there are for "predestination in Islam" – for obvious historical reasons – but there still is a leap of logic here from "there are more English language reliable sources discussing X than Y" to "it is much more likely that readers want to read about X than Y" – the later does not necessarily follow from the former. It isn't like English language reliable sources about predestination in a not exclusively Christian sense are rare and obscure, they are actually reasonably prominent – when I do a JSTOR search (by relevance) on "predestination" – I don't know if the results are the same for everyone or if different people get given different ones – the 2nd and 3rd results I get are using the word in a religiously neutral sense (JSTOR 2252196 and JSTOR 24151195); and in fact the first result I get doesn't count as a "reliable source" because it is a work of fiction (a short story, JSTOR 20134769), so actually the first two reliable sources JSTOR returns in a search for "predestination" are using the word in a religiously neutral way. And the 5th result (4th non-fiction result) it gives me is discussing the work of an Islamic philosopher on the topic (JSTOR 2850659; and the 8th result (7th non-fiction result) it gives me is discussing predestination in Judaism (JSTOR 4201528). So non-Christian uses of the term seem to be reasonably prominent in JSTOR results (40% of the top 10), which I don't think gives the topic in Christianity sufficient prominence over the topic outside of Christianity to support the conclusion that readers are much more likely to be interested in Christian than non-Christian discussions of the topic.

  Finally, when you say as long term significance is likely comparable I believe usage serves as an effective "tie-breaker" – why do we need to break the tie? Why not instead conclude that Christianity and Islam are equally primary? In which case, the logical primary topic is the higher-level topic (predestination in religion) which encompasses both predestination in Christianity and predestination in Islam. Mr248 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  As you said above, I think we've discussed this enough. While I had no position when we began our discussion, I have one now, and if our proceeding discussion not only failed to align my to your position, it aligned me against your position, I don't think further discussion will change my view - all it will do is clutter the discussion and perhaps dissuade uninvolved editors from presenting their own arguments (and we do need additional arguments, since all we have right now are your arguments and mine, with the rest being votes) BilledMammal (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no doubt that Predestination is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article's subject and the proposer himself says, "Obviously you will find English language sources using "Predestination" far more often in a Christian context than Muslim one," so this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It may well not be on Arabic Wikipedia (the Arabic article has parenthetical disambiguation, so I assume it isn't), but that doesn't concern us.

I also find it unsatisfactory to move an article to make space for an article which doesn't currently exist. We've no guarantee that an article will get written at Predestination and the situation immediately after the move will be the pointless one that Predestination redirects back to here. WP:CONCEPTDAB doesn't say that the broad-concept article should always go at the base name, just that if the broad-concept is primary, the base name should be an article on that and not a DAB page. I doubt that the broad-concept can be primary here.

There's also something wrong with the article at Predestination in Islam, because the lead begins by defining Qadar. Either the lead is wrong or that article should be moved to Qadar. In the latter case, there's no need for disambiguation at all.

In my view, it's very likely that a user typing "Predestination" into our search bar is looking for this page, and ultimately we're trying to assist users in finding the information they want. Havelock Jones (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – it will be excessively difficult to differentiate between the nom's hypothetical "Predestination" article from the existing articles on determinism and particularly theological determinism. Other than Christianity only Islam has a predestinarian doctrine notable and significant enough to merit its own article, and even then I don't think it should be called "Predestination in Islam", but rather Qadr, the proper name of the doctrine, so as to distinguish important nuances between it and the Christian doctrine (also keeping in line with articles like salah, contrary to "Prayer in Islam"). Might have to propose a move there. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 19:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  GN-z11, the theological determinism article is really a double of this article at present, in that it almost entirely discusses theological determinism in Christianity. It briefly mentions the concept in Judaism and Islam but all the actual authors it cites are Christians. Not everyone who believes in predestination believes in theological determinism – some Catholics would say "I believe in Augustinian single predestination but I don't believe in determinism, including theological determinism" – so I don't think predestination is simply a subcategory of theological determinism. On the contrary, it is probably the other way around – everyone who says they believe in theological determinism believes in predestination, but not everyone who believes in predestination believes in theological determinism. I think that is a good argument for merging theological determinism into Predestination Mr248 (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment if we don't move the article, then I think the current article needs to cover, even if only briefly, the fact that the term predestination is commonly used to describe Islam as well. Probably a brief section after the introduction mentioning the term's use in other religions. That section can link to the Predestination in Islam article after briefly mentioning the terms use in Islam. That would also be a good place to cite some of the comparative religion literature comparing the doctrine of Predestination between Christianity and Islam. Also I found some sources on the debate over predestination in Judaism which don't have an obvious home so such as section could mention that too. Mr248 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

IMO this connection is very worth to be included in this article. PeterTrompeter (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Predestination, not about "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" --Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Heavy use of material from Matthew Levering

About 30 percent of the references for this article is from Matthew Levering's book, Predestination: Biblical and Theological Paths (2011). These additions were made during December 2015. The edits during this period retained about 58 percent of the original material, with 20 percent of new material added. New material added includes double predestination and the majority of the history section. In regards to the history section, 1055 of the words from the December 2015 edits remain in the current article. Around 46 percent of the references in the history section are from Matthew Levering's book, Predestination: Biblical and Theological Paths (2011). 49.180.9.26 (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Out-of-context or editorally reinterpreted passage from Pope John Paul II

The passage cited from Pope John Paul II's "Redemptoris Missio" appears to be taken out of context, or at the very least re-interpreted by a wiki editor to apply to predestination, when that wasn't the original source's intent. Connecting the passage and reframing it in light of predestination would then seem to be an editorial choice and wouldn't be appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

In case there's a wikipedia policy allowing for this type of secondary interpretation, I'm leaving a comment here for someone more familiar to hopefully find, rather than removing the passage from this article myself. 64.135.139.165 (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)