Skip to content

Editorial standards

This project argues a case. That makes honesty a structural requirement, not a courtesy. These are the rules every file follows.

1. State the opposing view at its strongest

Every proof-text file opens with a section titled "The Calvinist reading" that presents the Reformed interpretation as its best defenders present it — not as a caricature, not as the weakest blog comment you can find. Use the actual arguments of Calvin, Owen, Warfield, Hodge, Murray, Packer, Sproul, Piper, White, Grudem, Schreiner, or Beale. If a file cannot state the other side so that a Reformed reader would say "yes, that is my view," the file is not ready.

Do not use the following as if they were arguments:

  • "Calvinists worship a monster."
  • "Calvinism makes God the author of sin" without first showing how the Reformed distinguish decree from command and then showing why the distinction fails.
  • Guilt by association with Servetus, Geneva, or the Crusades.
  • Claims about what "all Calvinists" think.

2. Quote only what you can source

  • Verified quotations get quotation marks, a citation with book/chapter/section or page, and a link where available.
  • Unverified but widely reported wording gets a "reportedly" or is paraphrased.
  • Paraphrase gets no quotation marks and an inline citation to the document.
  • Never construct a sentence and put it in a dead theologian's mouth.

Every quotation in the project is logged in 08-quotes/03-quote-verification-notes.md with one of three statuses: verified, probable, paraphrase. When in doubt, downgrade.

Translations matter. Calvin is quoted in the Battles translation unless otherwise noted; the Latin is given where the wording is disputed (as with decretum quidem horribile).

3. Argue from the text, not from the system

The casebook's core complaint against Reformed exegesis is that it imports distinctions the text does not contain (an eternal decree of reprobation, a pre-faith "giving" of individuals to the Son, a "drawing" that is effectual by definition). The casebook must not commit the mirror-image error. So:

  • Show the syntax, the flow of the argument, the antecedent of pronouns, the Old Testament quotation and its original context.
  • Distinguish what the text says, what the text implies, and what a system infers.
  • When the casebook makes an inference, label it as one.

4. Distinguish the schools

"Calvinism" is a family, not a person. Files should specify which position is being addressed:

Label Roughly
Classical Reformed / Dortian Double predestination, definite atonement, the free offer affirmed but grounded in a "two wills" distinction.
Westminster federalism Covenant of works/grace, confessional subscription, often paedobaptist.
Edwardsian / philosophical Calvinism Compatibilist freedom, "the will is determined by the strongest motive."
Modern popular Calvinism Piper, Sproul, White, Chandler, Platt; often more confident than the confessions and less careful about the free offer.
Hyper-Calvinism Denies duty-faith and the free offer (Gill, Hoeksema and the PRC). Not representative, but the system's most consistent edge.
Amyraldianism / four-point Universal atonement, unconditional election; an unstable middle.
Barthian / evangelical Calvinist Election in Christ, a different architecture; not the target of most files.

A criticism that lands on hyper-Calvinism is not automatically a criticism of Piper. A criticism that lands on Piper is not automatically a criticism of Barth. Say which.

5. The tone rules

  • Attack arguments, never souls. Assume Reformed people are brothers and sisters who are wrong on this, not enemies.
  • No mockery of the dead. No "Calvin's ghost," no gleeful quoting of "dreadful decree" as a trophy.
  • No political framing. This is not a left/right issue and should not be recruited into one.
  • No "cult" language. Calvinism is a theological tradition with serious exegetes. Say "the system has a problem here," not "Calvinists are deceptive."
  • Concede what is true. Total depravity is a real doctrine. God's sovereignty is real. Election is real. The casebook's argument is about what kind of election and how sovereignty works, not whether God is God.
  • PastoralRegister. Write as a pastor explaining a text to a congregation, not as a prosecutor.

Kevin Thompson's rhetorical style — the church-infiltration warnings, the strong language about deception — is not the house style of this casebook. His method (inductive reading, the three-pronged approach, the historical argument) is. Where his substantive claims are used, they are attributed to him.

6. Every file ends with the same four sections

  1. The Calvinist reading — steel-manned.
  2. The problems — numbered, each with a heading, each argued from the text or from the system's own commitments.
  3. The non-Calvinist reading — a positive account of what the text does teach, including what it teaches about God's initiative.
  4. What this does and does not prove — intellectual honesty about scope. Plus Further reading and See also cross-links.
  • Paraphrase first. Restate the argument in your own words and cite the source. This is the default for every modern author, video, and sermon.
  • Quote briefly. A sentence or two, with quotation marks and a citation, is normally defensible as criticism or review. A page, a section, or a whole talk is not.
  • Link, don't reproduce. Point readers to the original video, article, or book rather than copying it.
  • Do not republish third-party media. No re-uploading, no bulk copying, no substituting a summary for the original.
  • Public-domain texts (Dort, Westminster, the fathers, older commentaries) may be quoted more freely, but still with citation and without bulk reproduction.
  • Takedown. If a rights holder asks for removal, remove the material promptly and note it in NOTICE.md.

The full policy and the specific Thompson arrangement are in NOTICE.md.

8. Cross-linking

Every file links to at least three related files using relative Markdown links. The Scripture index and the proof-text index must stay in sync when files are added. Run python scripts/check_links.py before committing.

9. What the casebook does not claim

  • It does not claim Calvinists are unregenerate.
  • It does not claim the Reformed tradition has produced no good fruit.
  • It does not claim that the non-Calvinist view has no problems of its own. Where the Arminian or Provisionist view has a weak point (e.g., the "prevenient grace" of classical Arminianism is itself a post-fall universal enablement that needs defense; the "corporate election" reading of Ephesians 1 must still account for individual predestination), the file says so and points to the discussion.
  • It does not claim that the historical argument settles the exegetical argument. History is corroboration, not exegesis.