Talk:Wayne Grudem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Political Views[edit]

Why are the (soon to be outdated) 2008 political views of this man on Wikipedia. Not really relevant or encyclopedic if you ask me. (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Grudem & Vineyard[edit]

Article currently states that:

"[Grudem] is a member of the Vineyard Movement and one of its main apologists and spokespeople."

Is this still the case? — Matt Crypto 23:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pretty certain of this. I haven't read anything that shows he has left them or anything. His Systematic Theology book reflects a lot of Vineyard teaching, but is orthodox enough for conservative non-Charismatics to endorse it (although with a big "BUT" attached). I'm no fan of the Vineyard movement, but they did distance themselves from the Toronto Blessing ten years ago... which indicates that there is a semblence of orthodoxy within their ranks. This probably due to the efforts of Grudem. --One Salient Oversight 23:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Further to this: the reason I asked is that I half-remembered reading something about this in a book a while back, but I couldn't find or remember the book. Right after posting (of course) I found the book — sorry about that. It's Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? (1996), edited by Grudem. In the preface, he writes:
For most of my life, I have attended "open but cautious" churches with three exceptions:
During my college years I had the privilege of working one summer in Mt. Vernon, New York, as an assistant to the Rev. Harald Bredesen, who was by that time a prominent spokesman for the charismatic renewal. Then, during my seminary years, I served as a summer intern at a "cessationist" Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Westfield, New Jersey -- pastor Robert Atwell, himself a cessationist, simply asked that I not make my convictions a matter of controversy in the church. Finally, during the years 19891994 my wife and I were part of one Vineyard church and also helped to start another one, but the 45-minute drive finally proved far too much for effective church involvement. For that reason we began attending a wonderful Southern Baptist church near our home, where we are now members.
This implies that Grudem was no longer attending a Vineyard church between '94 and '96. He might, of course, still have been associated with the Vineyard movement afterwards, but I think this is worth looking at some more. (His Systematic Theology was published '94). — Matt Crypto 00:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In accordance with the discussion and the information we have right now I think it's best to remove the part regarding his membership but leave the rest about his support of vineyard as it is. We could say "has been" but this begs the question, "Why did he leave?" I think the best thing to do is leave this out until we have more current information.

--Victoria h 04:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Grudem was a close friend of John Wimber and provided a lot of theological input into Wimber's life. The vineyard movement has subsequently shifted theologically since Wimber's death in 1997, particularly in (although not limited to) it's adoption and promotion of the the egalitarian viewpoint which Grudem quite firmly argues against. I think this shift in theology is why Wayne is not closely involved in the vineyard movement like he originally was.

See the following link to an interview with Grudem, showing that he was involved in a vineyard church until 1994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Having been part of the vineyard movement for a number of years, I can confirm that Grudem has not had any visible involvement for a number of years. When the movement departed from Wimber's position on complementarianism he released the statement ""Under the guise of ‘mutual respect’ I believe the Vineyard leadership, by this policy, will drive out the pastors who are most faithful to the teaching of John Wimber and most faithful to the Word of God itself. With sadness and regret I now expect that compromise with the spirit of the age will soon follow in other areas of Vineyard teaching as well. I sincerely hope that the Vineyard will reverse this policy." (retrieved from — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"little value" judgement[edit]

His Systematic theology deliberately does not interact with any who disagrees with his doctrine of scripture, This means that the work has little value for those outside of the conservative evangelical wing of the church.

I admit that this statment was provocative but I do think that it is important to note that in his systematic theology he deliberately does not interact with those who disagree with his view on scripture. Even to the point of not dealing with alternative models of scripture User:Xopher_mc 24 March 2006

Grudem does provide counterarguments to typical objections to his view of Scripture, but, given that he thinks they're wrong, it's not particularly surprising that he doesn't bother to "interact" with them further after the section on the doctrines of Scripture. I don't think we really need make the point that someone from a such-and-such a theological background seems committed to discussing things only from that viewpoint. — Matt Crypto 08:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Matt. First, that statement isn't true. Second, this type of statement doesn't belong here for any number of reasons: non-NPOV, no original research, and it's a value judgement. Thirdly, the reading of materials one disagrees with for the purpose of better understanding, argument preparation, etc. is a nearly universal practice.--Victoria h 06:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Matt. However, if you could supply a quote and reference from Grudem to substantiate the claim that this is a "deliberate" omission, we could probably work it into the text (though in a more neutral way). --Flex 13:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
See page 17 in systematic theology (point 4 in his preface) User:Xopher_mc
I don't have the book. Please quote it here (with sufficient context, of course). --Flex 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please do, Xopher_mc, if you could. (My copy is currently on loan.) — Matt Crypto 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

File:WayneGrudem2.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:WayneGrudem2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 6 April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:WayneGrudem2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Best Friends?[edit]

The article currently states, "Grudem's best friends are Chris Hulz, Daniel Row, and Andrew Steen." There's no citation, they don't appear to be people of note, and I'm not convinced the information about "best friends" is relevant. In fact I've never come across this before on other wiki pages, unless the friendship is very public (eg. Gayle and Oprah) or otherwise significant (eg. John Piper and Mark Driscoll). Does anyone know who these people are or have a good argument for the inclusion of this information?Sadiemonster (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, I have removed the section. StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)