Talk:Reformed Christianity/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Perseverance

"Perseverance of the Saints: the saved, or Saints, cannot fall away; once saved, always saved."

This seems to be different usage than in Wikipedia entry Saint (or is it?). Can we clarify this on Calvinism and Saint entries please? Thanks.

I believe that most Protestants use the words Saint and Christian almost interchangably, and adjusted the beginning of the Saint entry to say as much. I'll leave it to a Calvinist to clarify the term as they use it though; it might have a more specific connotation in the phrase "Perseverance of the saints", I don't know. --Wesley

Thanks. We will stay tuned. :-)


Yes, Saint and Christian are also the same in Calvinist theology. In fact, Calvin didn't invent Calvinism. Its just that he was in the right place at the right time during the Protestant Reformation. Calvinism is essentially Reformed Theology - which is the same theology or progression of Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. -ds

Penitence

Could a calvinist or someone who knows from whence they speak clarify what exactly their stance on repentence is? I mean, if one of the Elect sin, can they make up for it? Is one sin all that is needed to prove someone isn't Elect?

I don't think that calvinists teach anything about repentance that would surprise another Christian. The scriptures teach the necessity of repentance, the falsehood of anyone's claim to be without sin, the need to confess sin, the faithfulness and justice of God to cleanse from all unrighteousness those who confess their sin and trust in the forgiveness that is in Christ. The only thing that might be distinctive about calvinism, is the particular emphasis on repentance as a gift of God: it is a great gift to be allowed to have a true understanding of the greatness of one's own sin and to be enabled to hate it and turn away from it in love for God. As for "electness": it's important to make a difference between "elect" as "elite", as opposed to "elect" as "loved". Those to whom God has been merciful to grant repentance, whom he has loved, are all sinners. If anyone is jealous of the "loved", they only need to ask for the gift of repentance for themselves, and that is the love of God to them, beginning to be revealed in them. I think that's a fair representation of what a calvinist would say. Mkmcconn
Indeed it is. I subscribe to what would be considered Calvinist doctrine (although I prefer the name 'Reformed', as I follow Christ, not Calvin). I have made an edit removing the phrase 'Once saved, always saved' from the list of hyper-Calvinist doctrine as it is actually mainstream Reformed - here's why. The position is that the saved (elect) can and will sin, but that God's forgiveness is sufficient to cover that sin. In effect, the P simply states that the elect and only the elect will continue in faith up until the end of their lives. Thus, while someone who is patently not concerned at all about living a holy life does not appear to be saved, he who is, does.
The key thing is to understand that the doctrine of perseverance (and I prefer 'Preservation', as God is the one who is responsible, not the individual believer) is meant to be a reassurance, not some kind of 'haha! gotcha!' test. Wooster 10:39 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Hi Wooster. In support of your point, The Westminster Confession of Faith 17:3 says with regard to those perseverance: "Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves." Mkmcconn \
However, this does not support "once saved always saved", because the knowledge of salvation is not presumption but a life of faith, which infallibly produces repentance. Thus, WCF 18:1 "Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish): yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed." Belief which is not directed toward walking in all good conscience before God is not faith, but presumption. Mkmcconn 12:04 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Exactly. Doctrinally (and in this context, we are I think writing doctrinally), the statement is that exactly the elect will be preserved - practically, the only way of telling whether one is elect, is to live a life of faith, in good conscience, before God. I think we're talking different terms here, as I do not disagree with you - which point leads me to ask on which side you stand? - but am of the opinion that 'once saved always saved' is an entirely correct means of expressing the doctrine of 'Preservation of the Saints'. If others misunderstand what being 'a Saint' means, that too needs to be dealt with, but not in an encyclopedia? Wooster 17:54 30 May 2003 (UTC)
I would not use the slogan "once saved always saved" because of its notorious misuse. It confuses perseverance with assurance; and by doing that, it turns assurance of salvation into presumption: "I am assured of salvation because I continue to believe that I am saved". That's why the slogan is commonly used to say what the bullet-point expresses: that "once I have asked Jesus into my heart" (this may even be represented as the entire content of repentance), because I have made this decision, I can be assured that I have am "saved". This is quite different from calvinism, which says that assurance comes through continuation in reliance upon the promises of God which concern Christ, and upon the means of grace appointed by Him: in the grateful life which follows from this there is assurance of forgiveness and the help of God. Just as assurance can be gained this way, it can also be lost by neglect: so that those who sin should not be told "once saved always saved", rather they should be told "repent". God will not fail to grant repentance to those whom he has loved, to those who by grace ask for a change of heart and a renewed life: that is "perseverance (or preservation, if you prefer) of the saints". Do you object to the bullet point as it stands now? How would you want it to read? Mkmcconn 23:08 30 May 2003 (UTC)
I've just never come across an evidence of misuse - maybe I'm coming at this from a background where we don't misuse the phrase. Thus, I don't feel that labelling the phrase variously as unhelpful or hyper-Calvinistic is accurate. To put myself in context, I come from a British church background, Congregational and Independent and fundamentally Reformed (although membership is broader than that), so maybe it's just my limited experience. Nevertheless, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080246064X/qid=1054416131/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-6199778-0778232?v=glance&s=books and RT Kendall is a well-respected writer. Wooster
Further links.
* http://www.geocities.com/1christlover/OSAS-.html understands the meaning, yet disagrees.
* http://www.thebereancall.org/articles/newpage31.htm understands the meaning, and would appear to agree, with similar reservations to your own - and mine, although the specific reservations hav never arisen in my (few) conversations on the topic.
* http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/cat1c.htm I suspect misunderstands the whole issue, and at any rate seems to be doing little to foster good relations between evangelicals of all shades and hues.
* http://www.behindthebadge.net/osas/ seems to understand entirely the important logical progression - and then disagrees, which is odd.
* http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/xian/basics/grace.html understands and agrees.

Interestingly, my Google document search on OSAS turned up tons of pages against the use of the phrase, but only this one that I could see in favour - even on UK sites, which may just enforce my impression of a limited experience. Wooster

May I be so bold as to ask whether you agree with the doctrine of eternal security? This does make a difference as to how I try to convince you, without shooting off the edge of the page with all these '::'s  :) Wooster
Anyway. I know that pastorally, we would deal with those whose lives do not show the signs of faith they once did in exactly the way you described - indeed, I would argue that if they are not saved, they never truly were - but I don't feel that Wikipedia is here to provide pastoral help to those in such situations. It's here to delineate certain (in this case theological) boundaries between concepts, ideas and facts. And thus, the only part I object to is the labelling of the phrase 'once saved, always saved' as hyper-Calvinist - you'd have to label a vast swathe of British Christians whose theology is Reformed as being hyper-Calvinist, something neither true nor diplomatic :) Basically, what I'm trying to say is that, regardless of notorious misuse, it is a phrase which any Reformed theologian would be happy to use, provided the meaning of 'saved' is sufficiently well understood. Can you see where I'm coming from on this? Wooster 22:03 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Taking the discussion to your talk. In the meantime, I'll remove the phrase from the bullet-point. Mkmcconn

POV

"Calvinism has frequently appeared in variously corrupted forms," -- Is this POV ? -- Jesus Blows Goats 06:45, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If Calvinism has the ability to define itself, then it is NPOV to call the departures from it, corrupted, which nevertheless call themselves "calvinism". One must wonder whether it expresses a sincere concern, when the user who asks about it calls himself "Jesus Blows Goats".Mkmcconn 20:12, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I picked that name in imitation of the existing name "Jesus_Saves!", which looked to be a longstanding name (so I figured that creative names were good) -- of course, I picked a version much more to my liking :) -- but I was since informed that mine was inflammatory, and I have changed it. I guess "Jesus Saves!" is a less inflammatory name, as it is pro rather than con. But it can mislead newbies, as it mislead me, into thinking that creative & entertaining names are ok. Sorry about that. Pagan 05:56, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Once saved, always saved

Does this article mention the charge I've seen used in debates that the TULIP doctrine justifies child abusers who continue in child abuse, as long as they have made the confession at once point in their life? (Should it, or is that scandalous more than doctrinal?) Jesus Blows Goats 06:45, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The aberration you are talking about, is sometimes called "Once saved always saved", and is contrasted with the confessional Calvinists' belief that the elect are those who endure in faith, and progress in sanctification to the end. "that those who once professed belief are saved, regardless of what they later do", expresses that perversion. Mkmcconn 20:12, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

Spam: Calvinist Churches, USA

An anon at 69.134.80.96 has repeatedly added a particular denomination to the external links. I have argued (in my edit/revert comments) that this belongs in Reformed churches, not here since 1. this page is concerned with the doctrinal content of the Calvinist system, and 2. we would invite a very long list of other denominations' web pages if this one is permitted. I plan to submit this case to the authorities if we cannot resolve it here. --Flex 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a Calvinist and hold to the belief system very strongly - but the link that has been repeatedly given is inappropriate for 2 reasons:
  1. Despite the title, which appears to be inclusive, the website is aimed solely at Reformed Baptists and excludes the majority of Calvinists who are paedobaptists. Calvinism does not restrict its influence to Baptist churches solely.
  2. I initially thought that the website was for a broad association, but is actually a base for independent Calvinist churches - which again is more exclusive than what Calvinism is. I will revert the page. Could the contributor PLEASE read this information and respond? If you continue to add this unimportant link you may end up being banned for a short time from editing Wikipedia articles. Flex and I do not have the power to do this, but if you repeatedly make the edits you are making WITHOUT discussion then Flex and I will be compelled to complain to administrators, and it will be up to them to decide. --One Salient Oversight 02:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The idea here is that people with different beliefs struggle to find a fair and accurate text. On the Calvinism page, the listing of a particular denomination is not appropriate. I will defend the actions of One Salient Oversight and Flex.--Cberlet 03:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hyper-Calvinism

It seems to me that hyper-Calvinism still exists today...it's all over the WWW, and in many congregations (and, I think, in more conservative Reformed/Calvinist denominations such as the PCA, to some degree). Could someone who knows a bit more about it perhaps mention something about that under the "Hyper-Calvinism" section (and also on the page Hyper-Calvinism? Flex? Jim Ellis? Thanks. KHM03 13:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right that some forms of "hyper" Calvinism still exist today. I am aware of the Gospel Standard Baptists (which would probably fit the technical definition). I'm also aware of the Protestant Reformed Church which has been labeled hyper-Calvinist because they deny God's common grace and have theological issues with some contemporary evangelism styles. However, I have had association with PCA churches and have not found evidence of the extreme views which might be considered "hyper" in the technical sense or the general sense. Jim Ellis 17:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the PCA is hyper-Calvinist...apologies. I have, however, known a few members of PCA congregations who were, in fact, hyper-Calvinist. I've actually known a few Reformed Baptists who also would fit the label (though all would argue that they were faithfully Calvinist, and others were less than faithful). The truth is that there are many United Methodists who are only nominally Wesleyan or Arminian; there are also Presbyterians who aren't Calvinist in the most faithful sense of the term. KHM03 17:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I myself work in a PCA church and dare say that many of our members are not Calvinist in the most faithful sense of the term. In fact, most attend this church because of its faithfulness to the infallibility of Scripture - all of it. Many of them have a difficult time with some tenets of Calvinism (like most of us) but prefer to struggle with the tensions given to us in Scripture rather than attend other churches who call themselves faithful to God's word yet rarely consider difficult texts or rise above a 3rd grade level in dealing with any text. -ds

Popularity of Amyrauldianism?

The article states, "In the United States, Amyrauldianism is the most common form of Calvinism current among evangelical churches." Where does that information come from? There is a vibrant Calvinist community who hold to all five points in the PCA, OPC, Reformed Baptists, and many other Reformed churches. Additionally, Westminster Theological Seminary (and Westminster Seminary in California), Reformed Theological Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary, and many others teach what can only be regarded as five point Calvinism and require adherence among their professors to the Westminster Confession of Faith. There are many internationally recognized five pointers including J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, John Piper, John Frame, etc. Perhaps they refer to the mainline and more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA)? They have the numerical majority, certainly, but that statement makes it sound like five pointers are all but extinct. Any input? --Flex 11:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know of several non-denominational Bible Churches that are 4-point. I think dispensationalists tend to be 4 pointers (at best). But I too question the validity of the statement you quote. Maybe it has to do with how the term "evangelical churches" is understood by the writer. However, I consider the denominations you mention (except for the liberal Presbyterian Church - USA) as evangelical. In the absence of source info, I favor a modification to the statement in question. Regards, Jim Ellis 12:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I made a change to that effect. --Flex 13:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TULIP

Since each point of TULIP has its own article, we should pare down the text here (e.g., drop the scripture references). This article is a bit long already. Objections? --Flex 13:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with eliminating the Scripture references, but leave the brief definitions. Jim Ellis 14:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Strongly agree, Flex. We should intentionally undo the tendency that proliferates in these articles, to reproduce the content of entire essays, with each mention of the issues. At best, we end up with numerous articles with identical content. At worst, we have several articles with conflicting content. I also agree with Jim Ellis, that one way to avoid this is to limit the descriptions in various ways. Another way would be to preface the section as containing material quoted from a reputable source, to which it would be less likely that passers-by would be inclined to add their own twist on the sentences. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flurry of edits ended

I am done with a flurry of edits which have left the article reorganized, pared down especially under Hypercalvinism, expanded for clarity under the new section "Other Calvinist movements", and with many, many more minor changes. Please review for damage; but I hope that it is over-all an improvement. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the use of main page redirections. The only major thing I would suggest is deleting the page TULIP (Calvinism) (which I renamed Five points of Calvinism) since each of the points has its own page already and can cover them in more detail. We can cover the history in Quinquarticular Controversy and briefly in Calvinism and the articles on each point. OR we could merge the five articles and Quinquarticular Controversy into Five points of Calvinism. I think I prefer the first approach since it allows individual references to pages rather than to Five points of Calvinism#Limited atonement (or whatever). There's also overlap with Predestination (Calvinism). --Flex 18:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Predestination (Calvinism) began as an essay posted for comment and improvement, when I first started editing here(look back in the history, if you're interested, and give me your comments - I still like the essay, although it is a little controversial). It was thereafter blanked and replaced with a brief (but complete enough) citation. The article should be converted to a redirect, I think. There isn't that much to say about Predestination that isn't said in Predestination, Five points, and Calvinism. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
Five points of Calvinism should be like Five solas. The two articles have a similar design, and editors on either should learn from how the other is developing, and imitate accordingly. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
You're right that the "Main" template should appear under each of the five points, rather than under the main heading for the five points. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For all the Calvinists out there...

Here's something I found for all you Calvinists (and you know who you are)...an upcoming event. Just thought I'd share. Symposium on Calvinism & Worship KHM03 6 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

NEWS ITEM: Pgh Seminary. KHM03 20:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Worm theology

While Reformed theology has sometimes been called “a” worm theology, it is not something uniquely linked with Calvinism as the article implies -- or even typically used of Calvinism. More properly, worm theology is the nickname given to any view of Christian living that is constantly self-deprecating. It has also been used to refer to those who believe that the worse you feel about yourself, the more likely God will respond positively to your request for mercy. I have heard it used to describe the theology of any who oppose the emphasis on “self-esteem” so prevalent today. The old fire and brimestone preaching of the past was sometimes referred to as worm theology.

All that is to say, I don't think this section is particularly accurate in it's use of the term, or particularly helpful to the overall article. If we can't delete it altogether, I would suggest a more concise treatment with the reference to "total depravity" and let it go with that.

As an aside, in addition to Isaac Watts' hymn, there are worm passages in Scripture which gave rise to the name; see Isa. 41:14, Job 25:6, and Psa. 22:6.

Jim Ellis 13:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts, Jim, and I made some changes accordingly. Let me know what you think. --Flex 14:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I for one think you did swell. I've always thought that Calvinism's most important distinctive was never the solas or TULIP, but Calvin's particular take on the sovereignty of God (Methodism's most important distinctive being Wesley's theology of grace, the RCC's being its sacramental theology, etc.). So I think you did right by Calvin there. KHM03 14:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Flex, that looks good to me. I hope Mkmcconn agrees. However, I was surprised to see you say that "advocates" of Calvinism sometimes use the term.  :-) Regards, Jim Ellis 14:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's the Isaac Watts quote (which I deleted), and I've heard some others embrace the term (like "Puritan" or "queer"). --Flex 14:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

No matter. I've just not heard "worm theology" used except as a pejorative. Jim Ellis 14:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that it's always pejorative. The only reason that I made a header out of it, is because I frequently hear critics of the Protestant view of Original sin speaking of that view as "Worm theology" - in other words, a degrading view of people and a denial of their likeness to God (a little lower than the angels). Mkmcconn (Talk) \
Some Calvinists are convinced that the Fall corrupts man's being, as such, so that sin actually adheres to the cells of his body and is passed on as a physical contagion to his posterity. They have support of this from the language used by the Westminster confession, for example, which speaks of original sin, together with the guilt of it, being passed on "by ordinary generation". This view is very near to literal "worm theology", because it implies strongly that Man is no longer human. He is a corrupted entity, not merely a corrupted moral actor. He suffers justly on account of Adam's transgression, not because he is guilty together with Adam, but because he is inherently despicable to God, no longer his good creation, not even a ruined apple, but an infestation. Personally, I find no difference between this and gnosticism. It is not, or it should not be, Calvinism. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
See this sermon from a PCA pastor, and here's one from an Adventist. John F. MacArthur coopts the term here: "I've often wondered who will be the greatest in heaven. The only possible answer is the one who suffered the most to proclaim the name of Jesus Christ. It certainly won't be anyone who has sought glory by political powerplay or audacious ambition. It is prepared for those who have been smitten with 'worm theology,' and lived it out." John Piper says, "God's way of freeing and mobilizing people who see themselves as worms is not to tell them that they are beautiful butterflies but rather to say, 'I will help you. I am your redeemer... Go to Egypt now, and I will be with you.'" I've heard others, too. That's just a quick web search, but it should be sufficient to prove that, like "puritan" and "queer," the term/concept can be coopted from critics as a badge of honor and is not "always" pejorative. --Flex 18:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well-cited, Flex. I am corrected. (And, it is this kind of co-opting that I intended in my over-written version, under that header.) Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sovereign grace

Each time I go through the "Sovereign grace" section I try to remove the jargon, to put the descriptions in simpler (but still accurate) English. That approach is reversed in each of the following edits. Let's talk about that, then. I think that this ought to be as plainly, briefly, and pointedly stated as possible, avoiding any Calvinish buzzwords, in terms of practical meaning, rather than abstract concepts. That's what I'm aiming for. Is there disagreement? Why can't I get that approach to stick? Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

My primary intent there is to present the "warm" side of Calvinism -- the side that avoids the technicalities of election and reprobation and focuses on the wonder of the sovereignty of God. That is a side that is often seen in preaching but not so much in theology text books, and it brings joy, gratitude, and love to the hearts of the recipients in a way that, say, details about the ordo salutis just can't. Admittedly, there is some jargon in my most recent version (e.g., "saving faith", "bring glory to his own name"), and it could do with some revision. What buzzwords are you thinking of in particular? --Flex 13:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
("...warm side of Calvinism"? That's generally referred to as "Arminianism"!) KHM03 13:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
(You must have overlooked that I also described it as "wonderful." :-P ) --Flex 14:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

When you over-wrote this, was it because it was on the "cold" side ?

Calvinism teaches that because it is God's sovereign choice, whether someone will be saved, and because the Scriptures teach that it is according to his revealed will to pray for one's own and God's enemies, a Christian should intercede for others with God, and pray that he would be merciful to persecuters, to grant them repentance, faith, and salvation.'

Or, prior to that, what about this?

So that, the difference between one sinful person and another is the mercy of God, and not that the other "worm" is more sinful than "I".'

Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I liked the sentiment of the first, but it didn't seem to me to flow with the section. I'm sure we can work the content back in if you think it belongs. The second is represented in the current text in essence, but as I deleted the prior reference to worms, I figured I might as well rework the latter. It also seemed too personal and not NPOVish with the "I". --Flex 17:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wow!

I am very impressed with the content of this article. The contributors are to be congratulated. So I've nominated it as a featured article. PedanticallySpeaking 13:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I like it too, and (as one of the contributors), thank you. Some of the things most interesting to inlookers are not emphasized here, though. I'm sure that your nomination will attract some help in rounding out the article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Everybody wants theocracy

We're going to have to spend some time talking about Geneva, the political side of Dort, the Puritans (especially Cromwell), Massachusetts Bay, and the South Africans. I think it can be done without too much distraction. Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And Michael Servetus.  :) KHM03 10:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Complicated, but perhaps linked to the pages on Theocracy and Dominionism. The early stuff could start here, but eventually it really should have its own page: Early Calvinism and Theocracy. There is a long-running debate on whether or not to call some of the early Calvinist experiments "theocracy." I say yes, but have read many scholars who say no. But worth starting a block of text here.--Cberlet 15:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
That was Calvin's intent, was it not? KHM03 20:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Free will?

"Thus, even saving faith is God's gift and is not of the will of man"

Please correct me if I am wrong, but my (somewhat limited) understanding of the Calvinist view is not that saving faith is not of the will of man, but that it is not due to the will of man. In other words, man wills it, once God grants it. Am I incorrect?

No. You are correct. I changed it. Is it better? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
: Yes, I think so.

I'm not sure you have given the summary sufficiently. I would formulate it that God wills faith in us and out of that willing we willingly believe. God's will is prior to and the cause of our willing, but does not substitute for our will. -- User:Urlord 18:10 PST, 12/12/05

Think of this: the will of man leads him away from God. By that logic, the only way a man can come to repentance is by intervention of God, what the Calvinists call "irresistable grace", for that man to recieve the gift of faith. -Guenther Bacon

As a Calvinist with an M.Div from a Westminster Confession Of Faith adhering seminary (Knox Theological Seminary), I would suggest that Luther's "Bondage of the Will" never met its full coherence until Jonathan Edward's "Freedom of the Will". Edwards argued that: 1) The discussion about the will is marred by failure to examine what the will is. 1a) The will is the capacity to choose what we want. 1b) That we can not and will not choose what we do not want, although our options can be limited, 1bi) If you put two apparently equally desirable carrots to either side of a donkey, there must be something to make him want or will one carrot over the other or he will starve. 1bii) My mother threatened me with going to my room if I did not do the dishes. I wanted to do neither, but I wanted to go to my room less than wanting to do the dishes, therefore I wanted to do the dishes. 2) It is in man's nature through creation that he wills (else he would be an automaton) and there would be no variety between men if it were otherwise ...and no responsibility. 3) After the fall, man wanted or willed to rebel from God. It is not that he lacked will, but love for God. 4) In applying "irresistible grace”’ God does not replace the capacity to will in an individual, but replaces "a heart of stone with a heart of flesh". The thing he chooses changes because God changes that which was the damaged in the fall, our love of God. I spell all of this out because those of us of the reformed theology are not suggesting a cold, robotic humanity and because salvation in reformed theology is not distinct from acceptance of salvation and repentance. Acceptance and repentance remain integral, but, by necessity, follow upon God's gracious actions. --24.126.2.207

Summary in intro

I deleted the summary sentence that was recently added to the introduction and that read:

The five main points of Calvinism are: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints.

As is noted in the "Summaries of Calvinism" section, most Calvinists don't consider the five points to be a good summary of their doctrine, let alone the "main points." Rather, the five points merely highlight the differences in understanding between Calvinists on the one hand and Arminians and Wesleyans on the other. If you think my deletion is incorrect, let's discuss it here. --Flex 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. But can't we find a way to call the TULIP points sinful?  ;) KHM03 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It was I, Brusselsshrek, who added the summary sentence, and I don't mind the fact that it was removed if that really does not summarise Calvinism. What I would like though is that rather than just removing it and leaving a void, you or someone else who feels they have a good grip on the subject actually write a very short one or two sentence summary of what actually is Calvinism. This was why I tried to do it myself - I came to the article and that's what I wanted, a one or two sentence summary to understand it before returning to the article from whence I'd come. Instead, because there was no summary, I was forced to trawl through the whole article and try and make that summary myself. In summary: someone write a concise summary in the first paragraph please. Brusselsshrek 12:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Doctrine (opposing)

I deleted the "Doctrine (opposing)" section from the "See also" section because it is vague and incomplete. Arminianism and Reformed Arminianism share much in common with Calvinism that they do not share with, say, Roman Catholicism (or Hinduism for that matter). Soteriology is only one part of the Calvinist system (albeit a very important part). It is unhelpful, IMHO, to list "opposing" systems without mentioning at what points they differ. If such points do merit inclusion, it would probably be better describe them in a paragraph that can explain them more fully than to list them. --Flex 12:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been debating Calvanism with a friend of mine and I have been unable to find any scripture where Jesus speaks about predestination. There are a few fleeting references to the "elect" at the end of times and I've also noticed that no scripture is cited in this article. It may be worth mentioning in the beginning of this article that the tenents of Calvanism relating to predestined and salvation were never preached by Jesus but rather that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. HarwoodRH 23:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

Really not appropriate to mention a church with 20 members (mostly from one family) in a general article on Calvinism.--Cberlet 14:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree.  KHM03 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree also. Jim Ellis 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I also agree Meng.benjamin 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't it have 100+ members? It's certainly notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, in any case.--86.20.61.98 20:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
They have no influence on other Calvinists and will be remembered as a bunch of sideshow freaks.  A.J.A. 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they are five-point Calvinists. All of them. Mentioning them in the article is a good notion, considering the fact that they are Biblically sound. Bacon
They have more than 100 members, most (but not all) of Phelps' lineage.  They most certainly fall under the Hyper-Calvinist classification. --71.229.144.249
Since they are a very small fringe group, I don't think they should be mentioned here as per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight ("Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.... [V]iews that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."). I would support a brief mention in the article on Hyper-Calvinism, however, since examples of Hyper-Calvinists aren't easy to come by. --Flex 13:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The specific article on Hyper-Calvinism does not even mention them, so why should they be mentioned in the more general article on Calvinism? In the context of this article, they are not notable enough to be mentioned. RelHistBuff 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
So, we go by physical size of the movement (in this case, number of warm bodies involved), rather than the influence the group might have on say, current events? Seems rather myopic... --164.159.172.2
Yes. The Wikipedia is not a newspaper (cf. #7 under this official policy). If WBC proves to be of historical significance despite their tiny size, they may later warrant a mention here. --Flex 10:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

"Though these are often over-emphasized by its detractors, Calvinism is perhaps best known for its doctrines of predestination and election."

For many people, (amongst laymen and scholarly treatment alike) calvinism does indeed refer specifically to a certain view of predestination and soveriengty. This is true. Those who would emphasize this are to be found both amongst adherents to this view of predestination and it's detracters. To say that it's just the detracters who do this is pov.

Rob Rohrs April 27, 2006

Merge with Monergism

That article is POV and largely redundant and could easily be redacted to fit under Calvinism#Sovereign grace. Objections? --Flex 14:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My POV
I have been to several Bible schools and the concept of calvanism still baffles me. Why? I have been reading on the subject in the articles found on James White's website.
Please correct me if I am wrong but basically what I understand is the following. God decided before time even began who he wanted to spend eternity with and made his own little list of humans to show mercy to and not send to hell. If you are not on his little grace list, to bad and so sad. God set up man for a fall so he could swoop in with the plan of redemption and extend grace to those people on his little list. People who respond do so because God wanted them to respond. People who reject the Gospel do so because God has decided to not extend grace to them. This theology seems screwed up to me and unfair. I could be mistaken but I think Dr. Norman Geisler has come out against James White's teachings on the subject but I could be wrong. It makes God sound pretty rotten to me. Any clarification on the matter would be helpful. I do believe God wanted the fall of mankind to take place and set it up as a part of the cosmic war between Heaven and Lucifer. --70.129.103.159

You can read the article on Calvinism, but this is not a discussion board for judging its validity or answering such questions. For that, you might consult the links at the bottom of the article or try the discussion forums at one of the listed websites. --Flex 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Monergism is NOT a doctrine which is limited to Calvinism only. Monergism is the cornerstone of Islam just as well, where the predestination and fatalism - kismet form the basis of the faith. Hence I strongly object merging Monergism with Calvinism, as Monergism is not a Calvinism-inclusive doctrine, but is present also in other religions than Christianity. --194.89.192.24

Fair enough. The article as it stood had no reference to other religions. If we can add that, I would withdraw the merge request. --Flex 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam is not Monergistic in the Christian theological sense. The definitions of these words vary depending on the theology purporting them. In Christian "monergism" God graciously saves people who are unable to save themselves.

Founder of Calvinism

I was under the impression that the historical founder of Calvinism was Zwingli, not Calvin. Any comments? I will try to get the sources. --146.245.188.162

The opening paragraphs make clear that Calvin was not the sole articulator of the system, but his Institutes is a quintessential expression of it in a way that is different from the writings of Zwingli, etc. There is a good bit of current research about Peter Martyr Vermigli's significant and overlooked role in the development of Reformed doctrine, but nonetheless, the system bears Calvin's name because he is its most famous systematic expositor. --Flex 13:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Removal of Sydney Anglicans from "Peoples" Section

I removed this link from the Sydney Anglicans for the obvious reason that if every church or diocese (that followed some of Calvin's teachings) placed their link in this section, it would swamp the page. An encyclopedia article should not be used for self promotion. If I am incorrect in this assumption, please post here so people can discuss the merits of promoting specific churches, or organisations.

Delisted GA

It seems that this article did not go through the GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2 in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed and submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 11:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

discredited

although I am not a Calvinist and find some of the ideas rather disturning there are many who would strongly suport this theology. I have removed the comment 'widely discredited' as it is not supported with references, but open to discussion Johnmarkh 19:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Absurd. A flat earth is widely discredited. Calvinism is alive and well. --Flex 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

I think this article lacks information about how many people belong to churches oriented along calvinistic lines and in which countries and percentages. For instance, that it is the most important form of christianism in the Netherlands, USA, Scotland and Switzerland. 213.13.91.127 00:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Marx on Calvinism

Why no mention of Marx' writings that Calvinism grew out of capitalism, rather than the other way around as Weber said? The Calvinists preach that people who are wealthy are that way because God wants them to be, and poor people are because they are not part of "the elect." Comments?

If Marx said that, feel free to add it to the appropriate section (with citations preferably, since it's not as well known as Weber's claims). As far as your statement that 'Calvinists preach that people who are wealthy are that way because God wants them to be, and poor people are because they are not part of "the elect,"' you'll certainly need a reliable source to demonstrate that that is a general truth (and I daresay you will have trouble finding one). --Flex 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

re: help me understand

Calvinism teaches that God predestines people to heaven, and allows the rest to suffer the consequences of their sin. This is not the same as what you're describing, that is called double-predestination, which is a subclass of Calvinist thought (and the minority).

God brings about repentance in the elect by changing their will in such a way that they will turn to him, which no one would do otherwise. So those who are not predestined to heaven would never pray and ask for repentance because without God's changing of their will they would never desire that. So if someone prays and asks for forgiveness it means that their wills have been changed.

Also, your professor's caricature of TULIP is really inaccurate. Here is a bit more accurate presentation than the slanted view your professor gave you (it's really despicable that professors do this. I could give you a slanted picture of Arminian theology that makes it look bad too... but I'm not going to be deceptive about things).

T - Total Depravity, might be better understood as Total Inability. It means that there is no part of us that is not affected by the fall, and because of that none of us have the ability or desire to turn to God.
U - Unconditional Election means that God's choice of us as the Elect has nothing to do with anything we do, it is a choice of God that is free from conditioning by us.
L - Limited Atonement basically means that Jesus' death, although sufficient for all, is only effectual for the elect. This isn't really any different than the Arminian stance, which says that it is only effectual for the elect but just defines how the elect become the elect in a different way. If you believe that Jesus' death DID anything concrete rather than just purchasing the potential for something, then you believe in Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace is better understood as Effectual Call, which basically means that God accomplishes that which he sets out to do. We always choose exactly what we desire... and never that which we do not desire. Those who are elect have had their wills changed in such that they desire to seek God, those who are left in their sins do that which they desire... namely rebel against God in favor of their own selfish desires.
P - Perseverance of the Saints means that God's grace is enough to change a person such that they will persist.

Your professor is presenting an inaccurate picture, which is a common underhanded tactic by Arminians who either don't know how to combat the doctrine... or don't care enough to present it accurately. If you're looking for a good resource you could check out "Why I'm not an Arminian" or "For Calvinism." Both are good, and inexpensive, resources for understanding what Calvinism actually teaches. They also have compainions that explain and defend the Arminian side (primarily by engaging in the same kind of inaccurate presentation that your professor did) called "Why I'm not a Calvinist" or "Against Calvinism" respectively.

ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

help me understand

Please help me understand something. Regarding Calvinism....am I right in stating that Calvinism believes that God has predestined certain people to Heaven and others to Hell? If so...does that mean if a person prays and ask for repentance in asking forgiveness of their sins, it doesn't matter because he/she is already predestined to Heaven or Hell? How can one know if they are one of the chosen ones predestined to Heaven? thank you CLysek1 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That doctrine is called "double predestination" -- see Predestination (Calvinism).

One of my theology professors summarized TULIP as
T = we're scum.
U = God chooses which scum goes to heaven and which to hell.
L = Jesus died only for the heaven-bound scum.
I = God doesn't give the heaven-bound scum a choice in the matter. (Which makes God sound like the Borg: Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.)
P = nor does He allow its scumminess to interfere with the process.
Jhobson1 (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like your professor has a chip on their shoulder about Calvinism. When people characterize Calvinism in this way, they are actually describing Hyper-Calvinism. – Confession0791 talk 03:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The Borg are Gene Roddenberry's dig at Christianity (hence his idealised Humans being a socialism militarise atheist society, whilst the borg are pasty-faced collectivist zombies). On the subject of what your professor said, he is generally correct (if rather childish in his phrasing), although in Calvinism Jesus died for all...but God only chooses to save a few of such. Calvinism is, essentially, the most scientifically and rationally sound form of Christianity; in that it recognises, with one or two quibbles, a universe of cause and effect, determinism, which is the foundation of a universe that can be understood through science and reason - where as the others rely on a supernatural thing ("free will") LeapUK (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Displayed image of the Good Shepherd - a graven image?

Would not the display of such an Ikon be at odds with the Calvinist prescription against the display of graven images and therefore inimical to the subject which it is being used to illustrate? If so it portrays a misleading impression of the article's subject matter.

Usury

"In this view, elements of Calvinism represented a revolt against the medieval condemnation of usury and, implicitly, of profit in general[citation needed]. Such a connection was advanced in influential works by R. H. Tawney (1880–1962) and by Max Weber (1864–1920)."

This is wrong when it comes to Weber. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism does not mention usury when it comes to Calvinism at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneCallahan (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Huldrych Zwingli

Huldrych Zwingli and Ulrich Zwingli seem to be the same person, shouldn't his name be spelled consistently in the article? ZARguy (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I would argue that it should be Huldrych, not because I have any knowledge of how he spelled his name, but because that is the spelling of the wikipedia article about him. Sterrettc (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! ZARguy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC).

The Reformed Tradition is more than just Calvinism, even in the sixteenth century.

I am concerned that Wikipedia redirects the entire discussion to Calvinism. I am a committed Calvinist myself, but the Reformed theological tradition predates Calvin (certainly in Zwingli and Bucer, and some might argue in Augustine!), and runs in multiple streams, even in Calvin's own day. Is there a possibility of splitting these articles? I just feel this is misleading and unscholarly.

Robert Johnson (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a slight possibility of having Reformed tradition as a separate article, but it would take a lot of work. The article does already mention quite a few other names (like Bucer and Zwingli) in its second sentence, so I wouldn't say it is misleading. StAnselm (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This has already been settled in convenient form by the Synod of Dortrecht, who "adopted the rule that every doctrine should be decided by the sole authority of the Word of God, leaving out all human philosophies and opinions on both sides." In this they may have been, in a sense, adopting the rule of the Albigensian Crusade, "Kill 'em all, and let God decide."

There may be some lack of clarity over whether God will decide, has already decided, or has really, for real, I'm not kidding decided (the "Double Decided Doctrine).

Whichever of the three it is, surely it is clear that lumping it all together so that God can point out the true parts (Matt. 13-9) is the right way to go.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that from a scholarly point of view, redirecting the whole (Reformed) to a subset (Calvinism) suggests a lack of familiarity with the history and chronology. Zwingli is the founder of the Reformed Church, and while Calvin was certainly its most well-known theologian today, he was definitely second generation. The Canons of Dort, which addressed distinctions with the theology of Jacob Arminius, were written long after Calvin's death and are not part of the confessional subscription of millions in the Reformed Church, e.g. French Reformed, Hungarian Reformed, etc. Lumping the much broader history of the Reformed Church under the subset of Calvinism just seems a little ignorant. And yes, I have formally subscribed to the Canons of Dort, so this isn't a knock on "Calvinism". I'm just saying we ought to get this right, and not simply adopt a popular, albeit wrong, assumption. Waynenoogen (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)WaynenoogenWaynenoogen (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC) May 10, 2016

Table

I reworked the "comparison among Protestants" table to flow better and be more readable, but I can't seem to adjust the size to 85% width. Also, should it be converted to a template, since it is on multiple pages? If so, I'm not sure how to do that properly. – Confession0791 talk 03:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the template is an excellent idea, and I have gone ahead and created it. (From this page - I assume they are all the same.) I don't know about adjusting the width, though. StAnselm (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Does neo-orthodoxy belong?

The neo-orthodoxy page does not state that neo-orthodoxy is a strain of Calvinism, and it would be a contentious claim to say it did. The Calvinism article does not seem to allow that Mainline theology can be included at all, and yet the section on neo-orthodoxy references "Mainline Reformed churches." JFHutson (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Many people who self-identify as Reformed also self-identify as neo-orthodox. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/FAQ. StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm OK with some neo-orthodox folks being called Calvinists (on WP anyway), including Barth, but I'm not sure even Barth would call neo-orthodoxy a variant of Calvinism. Definitely not an expert on neo-orthodoxy, but the FAQ you point to says some of the neo-orthodox are properly Calvinists, and the neo-orthodoxy article does not describe it as within Calvinism or building off of Calvinism any more than any other theologies. See Neo-orthodoxy#Relation_to_other_theologies. JFHutson (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove this section. If you think neo-orthodoxy belongs as a variant of Calvinism, you should edit that page as well to make that clear. Basically I'm agreeing with the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/FAQ, but the fact that some of the neo-orthodox are Calvinist doesn't mean that the neo-orthodox would say neo-orthodoxy is a Calvinist movement or variant or even off-shoot of Calvinism. JFHutson (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, fair enough. I support its removal. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Neo-Calvinism as definition of Calvinism?

The first sentence of this article describes Calvinism as "an alternative approach to the Christian life" and cites a lecture by Kuyper. As the article makes clear, Kuyper's neo-Calvinism is a strain within Calvinism, and I don't think "alternative approach to the Christian life" describes what most people mean by Calvinism or the Reformed faith.JFHutson (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, we probably need something from a new, objective source. I'm keen to have something like this in the lead, since many authorities would say being a Calvinist affects every area of one's life and thought. I think the lead could be improved, but off the top of my head I can't think of anything better. StAnselm (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find that anyone having that emphasis ("being a Calvinist affects every area of one's life and thought") is going to be a neo-Calvinist. I mean, it's obviously true in a sense, but when I read that I think Kuyperian. I think if this were a proper emphasis of Calvinism as a whole, then you would see it somewhere in the rest of the article besides the neo-Calvinism part. JFHutson (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, a lot has been written on the Puritans' life and thought - I dare say those are things Neo-Puritans might emphasise as well. StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You're right, but once again Puritans represent a strain within Calvinism, and you've pointed out an emphasis that distinguishes them from other Calvinists. We're trying to describe Calvinism as a whole, and this is not something that unites Calvinists in distinction from other Protestants. JFHutson (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I would say that at the heart of Calvinism is a view of the Sovereignty of God. This leads to the doctrine of election, of course, but it also leads to the doctrine of Scripture, and that is one that affirms the Word of God as authoritative in every part of life. StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
How 'bout "form of Christian practice?" JFHutson (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This also leads to a doctrine of providence, and the belief that God uses means (namely us), which also should affect the way someone lives their lives. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
No one is arguing over whether Calvinism has ethical aspects. The current lead uses the words "alternative approach to the Christian life." Every form of Christianity I can think of has ethical aspects, but that phrase along with "affects every area of one's life and thought" brings to mind neo-Calvinism, which has it's own page. I propose "form of Christian practice" which is much more neutral and less laden with Kuyperian connotations. JFHutson (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still mulling the lead over in my head. I think "type of Protestant theological system" doesn't describe Calvinism very well either. Lutheranism calls itself a "major branch of Western Christianity," which I like the sound of, and based on the graphic found at Western Christianity#Western denominations it definitely works. Thoughts? JFHutson (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

20th Century Influences

Opening discussion on the information added by Speahlman.

Here were the people listed


I think that Kuyper, Barth, and Brunner are probably significant enough and common knowledge enough by reasonably well read people in the field to not need a specific source. Seeing that I have never heard of Ragaz, Kutter, and Thurneysen, I think they will require a source. Thoughts? ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

But who's missing? Francis Schaeffer? Louis Berkhof? J. I. Packer? R. C. Sproul? Cornelius Van Til? John Murray? Rousas Rushdoony? It seemed like a fairly arbitrary list. Anyway, we have a clear list to choose from at Category:20th-century Calvinist theologians. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith lists the three most influential works as being those by Barth, Brunner and Otto Weber, the last of whom does not even have a Wikipedia article. (I guess Eduard Thurneysen needs a page as well.) StAnselm (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have started Otto Weber (theologian). StAnselm (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I would go with you on all of those except Moltmann. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, but we should probably prune. Maybe have seven to go with the seven Reformation-era ones listed? StAnselm (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
We need to have at least one of the Old Princeton guys on there... Warfield or Hodge for sure. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't consider them because it was restricted to the 20th century. But Warfield definitely qualifies... StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, so what about Kuyper, Bavinck, Warfield, Barth, Van Til, Packer and Sproul? StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a good list. What about Michael Horton and David F. Wells ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should split the list: 20th-century - Kuyper, Bavinck, Warfield, Barth, Van Til; current - Packer, Sproul, Carson, Wells, Horton. 21:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
That could work, but I'd rather keep it as "Modern" and include all of them. I'd say Wells is more important than Carson, same with Horton. I'd go with Packer, Sproul, wells, and Horton. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Christian Reconstructionism does not deserve a section

Christian Reconstructionism states it is "relatively insignificant in terms of the number of self-described adherents," and I think that's an understatement nowadays. In the context of Calvinism, a global religious tradition with at least 80 million adherents (based on the WCRC stat in this article), I don't see how it merits mention. I tried to delete it awhile ago and was told that it is notable. It is certainly a notable movement, but not every notable movement in such a large and diverse religious tradition is going to be mentioned, let alone have a section, in the main article. --JFH (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. Looking at all the variants listed, none of them would necessarily have more self-described adherents than Reconstructionism. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I find that really hard to believe. Hyper-Cal and Amyraldianism would be better handled in the theology section, but they are important theological issues for Calvinists. There are several very prominent New Calvinists named in that section. If the New Calvinism = Piper, Keller, and the Gospel Coalition then it's much larger than CR. Neo-Cal is more important historically, but some would argue it is the dominant ideology of Calvinism today. There are several notable folks mentioned at the Neo-Cal page, some of whom are alive. It would be better to work both of these into the history section, but I think it's fine for now. Christian Reconstructionism was a flash in the pan, with no prominent promoters today. Rushdoony is the only notable person mentioned at the CR page. --JFH (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I recently downloaded D.G. Hart's brand new Calvinism: A History, and was unsurprised to find no mention of theonomy, CR, or any person associated with those. Neo-Calvinism got a whole section and Amyrauldianism is discussed in several places. New Calvinism isn't discussed, and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to removing it as well, but I think it's evident that in today's landscape these figures are much more prominent than those of CR. --JFH (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't just today's landscape that we have to deal with. I wouldn't be opposed to a very brief note about the basic contuors and a link to Christian Reconstructionism. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Which is why I mentioned its complete absence from the historical literature. If Hart found no reason to mention it in a > 300 page survey, what is the basis for saying it is historically important enough for this article? New Calvinism is more understandable because of its contemporary importance. --JFH (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
There are any number of reasons that it could be absent in Hart's work that aren't related to its significance. Do we have a statement by him saying that that is why he left it out? If not, is making that assumption not WP:OR? What do other historical works regarding Calvinism say? How do they treat (or not treat) the subject? ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hart's new book (which I'm really enjoying) is the only survey of the history of Calvinism which goes through the 70s. The History and Character of Calvinism was written in 1967. Christ's Churches Purely Reformed only covers through the seventeenth century. The Historical Dictionary of the Reformed Churches does not mention CR, theonomy, or any associated writer I could think of. Really though, the BURDEN is on someone arguing to include it to show that it is considered important to Calvinism as a whole simply by including a citation to some reliable source on Calvinism as a whole. So no, I am not doing OR, I am saying it is OR to include significant space to a sub-topic when no RS has done so. --JFH (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN doesn't apply here, because the information is sourced. If you're talking about burden of proof broadly, then no, burden of proof would rest on the person proposing a change to prove that the change is necessary. If I was proposing that we ADD a section that didn't exist, I would have burden, but it is already there so the burden is on the person who is suggesting removal (you). ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I've done my best to prove the negative anyway. The only information we have right now on the importance of this movement has to do with right wing politics in the US. UNDUE and FRINGE applies here as well since this movement represents a fringe interpretation of Reformed theology. --JFH (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Pew report

Why would the recently removed report of the Pew foundation be "unreliable"? --JFH (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

False dichotomies between other Protestantism vs. just explaining basics?

I reworked the paragraph in "Sovereign Grace" to illuminate a little better on what are and aren't distinctions between Calvinism and other Protestant views such as Lutheranism, Molinism, and Classical Arminianism. It seemed that a distinction was being made that Calvinism is the only system which thinks God doesn't save people on the basis of "faith, or any other virtue," or words to that extent. I left the questionable phrase intact, but in the paragraph below clarified that neither Lutherans, Molinists, nor Classical Arminians would find that to be a "distinctive" of Calvinism, since they all agree faith is not meritorious. I provided fairly extensive footnotes and references. If you disagree with any of my phraseology, please modify it slightly or provide your input here so we can discuss it. Please also check my sources in the event you simply disagree with what I am saying, or find it 'paradoxical' theology and therefore wrong.  : ) Thanks! Mjc-research (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Polity Bifurcation

  • "Calvinists can be divided into two distinct traditions distinguished by ecclesiastical polity: Presbyterianism and Congregational churches."

In terms of polity, in terms of decisionmaking, isn't Presbyterianism (elected representation, where denominations have a 'federal model') merely a modified form of Congregationalism, since decisionmaking authority within a Presbyterian-type denomination flows representationally upward from the believers in congregations to denominational of other levels? MaynardClark (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe conceptually, but historically presbyterianism came first. Congregationalism came out of Puritanism later on. Presbyterian churches have various degrees of top-down vs. bottom-up styles. In America, you're right that's it's always been very grassroots, but that's somewhat of an anomaly. --JFH (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Calvinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

obvious bias

Some sources would view Calvinist influence as not always being solely positive.

This says clearly that anti-slavery, women's rights, prison reform and the red cross are prositive things. An opinion that is not shared by all humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.128.131.164 (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, Gerd, Wiki is not here to promote slavery, or destroy the Red Cross, etc., etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.5.229 (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is her to be neutral and this section says that these things are positive, with is an opinion not a fact.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Calvinism. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Calvin and the Canons of Dort

It is important to remember that the Canons of Dort were written around 50 years after the death of John Calvin. The Canon of Dort may not represent John Calvin's true theology. Charles Finney, (my own opinion), believed that the Scriptures used by the Canon of Dort, (or Synod of Dort), in trying to prove their points, in fact, do not prove the points at all. From my perspective a person that believes in the Canon of Dort, and TULIP, are Hyper-Calvinists.Easeltine (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why we use WP:RS instead of personal opinion... the VAST majority of Theologians (Reformed and non-reformed) would disagree with you about that point. The difference between hyper-calvinist and calvininst proper is not TULIP, it is the Free Offer of Grace and Faith Duty. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Calvinism ≠ Reformed

I want to start a discussion here that I believe is important distinction. Reformed theology consists of the three "C's".

Calvinism is but one aspect of Reformed theology. Now we have many Christians (such as John MacArthur) who hold to the five points of Calvinism, but are otherwise dispensationalist and do not hold to the WCF nor the 1689 BCF. And since Dispensationalism and Covenant theology are diametrically opposed to one another, I think it's safe to say that dispensational, non-confessional Calvinism does not qualify as Reformed Christianity. The Reformed tradition is much more than just Calvinism alone, and should have its own page. — Confession0791 talk 17:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That is how I tend to use the words, but other people differ in their terminology. This issue was discussed several years ago here - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/FAQ. StAnselm (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

– This religious tradition is usually called the "Reformed tradition", "Reformed faith", or "Reformed Protestantism" in reliable sources. Most sources on the tradition and its theology use the term Reformed tradition or Reformed theology in their titles. Here is a short list of overviews.

  • Allen, R. Michael (2010). Reformed Theology. Doing Theology. New York: T&T Clark.
  • Alston, Wallace M. Jr.; Welker, Michael, eds. (2003). Reformed Theology: Identity and Ecumenicity. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
  • Leith, John H. (1980). An Introduction to the Reformed Tradition. Louisville, KY,: Westminster John Knox.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  • McKim, Donald K. (2001). Introducing the Reformed Faith. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
  • Sproul, R. C. (2005). What is Reformed Theology?. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

All but one of these are directed to non-specialist audiences. This demonstrates that "Reformed" is recognizable to nonspecialists and satisfies WP:NC on recognizability.

I realize that most of these use "Reformed theology". I don't think that this is the appropriate term for the article because it is about the entire religious tradition. "Reformed tradition" includes the theology as well as practices and history.

A search of Google books for "Reformed tradition", "Reformed dogmatics", "Reformed worship", "Reformed theology", "Reformed confessions", etc. will show many more reliable sources than the equivalents with "Calvinist". reformed tradition returns more results than calvinism, and many of the results for "calvinism" do not appear to be reliable sources on the subject of the page.

Books on "Calvinism" are usually about predestination, which is not the subject of this page. This is a WP:PRECISION issue. Calvinism is often used to mean something more specific than the wider Reformed tradition.

Admittedly, the three most reliable books on the history of the tradition have included the word "Calvinism" in their titles (though Benedict's Christ Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism at least used "Reformed" in the main title). The two most recent of these books have statements from their authors indicating that Reformed is the preferred term, but they used "Calvinism" in their titles for identifiability to a wider audience. They then proceed to use "Reformed" throughout the book. Despite these statements, I believe, based on the above book titles and many other nonspecialist sources, that "Reformed tradition" satisfies WP:NC, which states that the title only needs to be recognizable to someone familiar with the subject. One does not need to be an expert on this subject to know what Reformed means, even if Calvinism is more a familiar word in a wide context.

Quotes from authors of histories with "Calvinism" in the name

Reformed is thus for several reasons a more historically accurate and less potentially misleading label than Calvinist to apply to these churches and to the larger tradition to which they attached themselves. Up until this moment, I have used Calvinist and Reformed synonymously to make myself clear to nonspecialist readers who are more likely to recognize the latter term. Henceforth Reformed will be this book's label of choice whenever reference is being made to the broader tradition that it examines and to any of the churches associated with that tradition.

— Benedict, Philip (2002). Christ's Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. xxiii.

Reformed Christianity existed before Calvin became a Protestant, and so calling the churches to which he belonged Calvinist is anachronistic. Before Geneva became a home for Protestantism, several cities in the Swiss Confederacy, Zurich chief among them, had initiated reform. At the same time, Geneva was a late addition to the Swiss Confederacy and always dependent on stronger Swiss cities. This meant that in addition to the struggles Calvin faced in his adopted city, he also encountered resistance and sporadic opposition from the other Reformed churches in Switzerland. His difficult dealings with the other pastors make all the more ironic the later identification of Reformed Protestantism with Calvinism.

— Hart, D.G. (2013). Calvinism: A History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. p. 59.

I mean I would have preferred to use the words Reformed Protestantism as the title, but of course no one would know what that is, so the readers out there who associate, who know Calvinism because of the Puritans and Puritan studies or Max Weber or because of Kuyper's claims about Calvinism, that's an easier title identity for the book and its history, but it does set up a problem of expectations that won't be met.

— Hart, D.G. (2013). "Interview on Calvinism: A History" (Interview). Interviewed by R. Scott Clark. Westminster Seminary California. {{cite interview}}: Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help)

The third history, The History and Character of Calvinism written by John T. McNeill in 1954, uses Calvinist to distinguish from Zwinglianism, and Reformed to encompass both. That doesn't jive with the other (more recent and reliable) sources because they include Zwinglianism in their histories of "Calvinism" (which they would prefer to call the Reformed tradition).

Here are some more quotes from reliable sources on the subject.

Quotes from reliable sources on why "Calvinism" is bad

The term "Calvinism," like the acrostic TULIP, has been, in short, a cause of a series of problems concerning the identity of the Reformed tradition and of Calvin’s relationship to the tradition. Both identifiers are anachronistic and reductionistic. Each of the several meanings of “Calvinism” results in mistaken understandings of the thought of John Calvin and its relation to the Reformed tradition of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Use of the acrostic TULIP has resulted in a narrow, if not erroneous, reading of the Canons of Dort that has led to confused understandings of the Reformed tradition and of Calvin’s theology.

...

By way of conclusion, we return to the initial question, "Was Calvin a Calvinist?" The answer is certainly a negative. Calvin was not a "Calvinist" — but then again, neither were the "Calvinists." They were all contributors to the Reformed tradition.

— Muller, Richard A. (2009). "Was Calvin a Calvinist?" (Document). {{cite document}}: Cite document requires |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)

First, the term "Calvinist" ought to be dropped entirely. A name which attaches certain beliefs or practices to a particular figurehead (in this case, John Calvin) requires strong footing lest it seem historically and logically idiosyncratic. Thus, such a term should be employed for those who (1) found a movement or initiate some belief or institute some practice, or (2) definitively shape the development of some movement, belief, or practice....Thus, as Calvin is neither the founder of these doctrines or these churches nor one who definitively shapes them, "Calvinism" is less than accurate.

— Allen, R. Michael (2010). Reformed Theology. Doing Theology. New York: T&T Clark. pp. 3–4.
REFORMED PROTESTANTISM: ALTERNATIVES TO CALVIN 1540–60

John Calvin's reputation has so mushroomed in the centuries after his death that it is easy to equate with his name the whole of Reformed Protestant theology and practice, and then rather crudely award it the label which started life as a term of Catholic or Lutheran abuse: 'Calvinist'. Calvin himself, a reticent and private man despite his steely abilities in politics, would not have approved this. He was in any case a second-generation Reformer, and even as the reputation of his work in Geneva grew, there were plenty of currents within the Reformed Protestant world that did not automatically look to him for leadership.

— MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2005). The Reformation: A History. New York: Penguin. p. 253.

To summarize:

  1. "Calvinism" is problematic for WP:PRECISION reasons.
  2. "Calvinism" is inaccurate because the Reformed tradition does not look to Calvin as a founder.
  3. "Reformed" is recognizable to those familiar with the subject, but not necessarily expert.
  4. "Reformed" is a common descriptor in reliable sources, including nonspecialist ones.
  5. "Reformed tradition" designates the entire religious tradition, including its theology, worship, and history.

I am not including Portal:Calvinism or WP:WikiProject Calvinism at this point because I do not want technical issues of moving these to hold up the article space move. JFH (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Strong oppose This is not the Christian Wikipedia. there are other reformed traditions in the world outside of Protestantism. You will need to add disambiguators to avoid WP:BIAS favouring Christianity over all other religions. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If the primary meaning of "Reformed tradition" in reliable sources is Calvinism, that's all that matters. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Reformed Christianity per nom & 70.51.44.60's reasonable point. Admittedly this might require a hatnote change since plenty of non-reformed Christian denominations are still "reformed" in the sense of being descendants of the Protestant Reformation, but oh well. SnowFire (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is a well-thought out proposal, but it is precisely on the evidence provided that I oppose it. While the theology is perhaps more often called "Reformed theology", this article is indeed about a wider tradition which is called "Calvinism" more than "the Reformed tradition". I'm not convinced that there is a problem with the current title. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you elucidate what you mean by a wider tradition called Calvinism and point me to a reliable source?--JFH (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I was simply intending to echo your own words about the article being about more than theology, but "about the entire religious tradition". StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see I misunderstood. I think it's actually much more common for Calvinism to refer to theology (but usually particular views on predestination) than anything else. You'll find lots of books on Reformed worship, Reformed spirituality, and Reformed churches, but few on the Calvinist equivalents. One of the books listed above is about the "Reformed faith" and another about the "Reformed tradition".--JFH (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not having an article titled "Calvinism" is ridiculous. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Calvinism is certainly the common name in everyday usage as opposed to specialist usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pelagianism?

Moved the following from the lede: "A basic principle is that they deny the Catholic teaching that humans can achieve salvation through their actions." (1) I don't think this is "Catholic teaching"; (2) I could not find where the source cited claimed it was; ...if anything, it sounds a little Pelagian. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge Reformed churches here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
not merge--JFH (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the purpose of Reformed churches. It seems that this article may have been started to be about the continental Reformed (continental reformed churches redirects there) as opposed to Presbyterians, but that's not what it is now, and IMHO the way the article is specified is identical to Calvinism. JFHutson (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Reformed churches as a general article about churches in the continental reformed tradition. There are subtle but important differences with Presbyterian churches. StAnselm (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree. There are many things about the Reformed church that are not necessarily identical with Calvinism proper. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, it makes sense to me to have a separate article on the continental Reformed, I just didn't see Reformed churches as currently serving that purpose. I've made changes to it to make it more clear that that's what it is and hopefully folks will add material to make the distinction clear. JFHutson (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2012 (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.

I don't think theyre useful enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.38.51 (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Augustinian Calvinism

I'm not sure whether Augustinian Calvinism should exist at all, but I'm confident it is not a common enough name for Calvinism that it should not be mentioned in the lead to this article. When you look at the two citations, Warfield never uses the term, and Helm is talking about a specific view on divine foreknowledge, not Calvinism as a religious movement (the subject of this page). I think Helm is more referring to the fact that the view he presents is shared by Augustine and Calvin rather than arguing that the term Augustinian Calvinism should be used for the tradition. In fact if you search Paul Helm's blog (I know, not a reliable source, but I don't have his books in front of me) you don't find that term, but you do find Calvinism, so it doesn't seem likely that in the citation provided that Helm says he prefers the term Augustinian Calvinism over Calvinism. I've held off on requesting deletion of Augustinian Calvinism because a Google book search turns up lots of hits. But not nearly enough hits to say this is a common alternative name for Calvinism, especially when we are listing four alternative names already!--Jfhutson (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. If you really believe that the page "Augustinian Calvinism" should not exist at all, then, after that is determined as the consensus course for WP, this link should be definitely deleted. But until that is debated and decided, I believe that a link between the two pages must exist somewhere on this page. Maybe it can be moved out of the lead, but it should not be altogether removed, I believe. As it is, the connection and link has proven useful to me, so far. Thanks again, warshy (¥¥) 19:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I looked at that article some more and I started a move request: Talk:Augustinian Calvinism. But the statement in this article is a separate issue. I've shown that the statement that some people call Calvinism "Augustinian Calvinism" is not supported by the citations, and even if there were people that called it that it isn't a common enough name that it should be mentioned in this article at all. If you would like to put a statement that is supported by the citation somewhere in the article, that's fine, but the statement I've pointed out should be removed regardless. --Jfhutson (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I would have to read the reference article in order to agree that the alternative name "is not supported by the citations." But in the meantime, until that happens, and until we can see any clear direction in your move request on the other article, my position is still that it could be moved out of the lead, but a link to that article should still exist on this one, as long that article exists. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 17:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Renaming Calvinism => Reformed tradition

Can someone remind me what was the basis for not renaming this article to "Reformed tradition", or not having 2 separate articles "Calvinism" and "Reformed tradition"? I'm sure this had to be discussed before.Ernio48 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes - there was an unsuccessful move request just a few threads up on this page. StAnselm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I came under impression that Reformed is more familiar for the English-speaking world than Calvinist is. No idea, though...Ernio48 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I have never heard of Calvinism referred to as anything other than Calvinism. It seems to me that Calvinism would be the common name. And there is this, for whatever it is worth, Google Trends {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As someone currently writing on the topic in an academic setting, it is disappointing to me to discover that this was initially rejected. "Calvinism" was initially a pejorative (it's somewhere in Muller's PRRD or in the various texts by Willem van Asselt). I don't use Wikipedia all that often, and pretty much never post, but this is something I've told high school students to ignore as a bad label in their somewhat out of date textbooks. For all that the article doesn't appear all bad, I'll be able to add this to the list of things to avoid for a quick summary (and no, I'm not one of those who throws out Wikipedia in toto, but this is a problem). "Reformed" makes more sense historically. --eleuthero (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I too am a wikipedia incompetent teacher. While Calvin is the most influential theologian, there is a tradition which precedes him. It makes much more sense to say "Calvin is part of the second generation of Reformed scholars" than like "Calvin is part of the second wave of Calvinists", especially when you are a trying to make distinctions between different Reformed scholars. There should either be a separate Reformed Theology page or Calvinism should be a subsection of this one, simply because "Reformed" is a bigger tent than "Calvinist" and thus it is useful (especially in history classes) to make distinctions between them.22:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I deal more with 17th century history, not so much with what comes after that. In that time span I think Calvinism is a more common noun for the phenomenon than Reformed tradition. In that time span the nouns would either be Calvinism or the national Reformed Churches, in my view. I just came here earlier today when I looked up 'Calvinism'... warshy (¥¥) 23:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I seem to be a bit late to this discussion, but I wish to throw my hat in with changing "Calvinism" to "Reformed". The former is not an accurate descriptor. It is often used specifically in the context of histories of the wider Protestant Reformation, because saying "Reformed" without more descriptors is confusing, and with, a mouthful. This, I think, is really the only reason "Calvinism" is sometimes a more well-known term. So-called Calvinists usually don't self-identify as such. It's approximately as erroneous (and perhaps offensive) as if the article for "Islam" was actually titled "Mohammedanism". -- LightSpectra (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Five points of Calvinism: Sola fide

How can sola fide be attributed to Calvinism, and not Lutheranism, when its the basic tenet of Lutheran belief: Our churches by common consent ... teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4. — Article IV, "Of Justification", Augsburg Confession, 1530.

How can sola fide exist in Calvinism, when its God's election before time that determines hell or heaven? Weatherford (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

God's election determines who will be saved, and those who God elects are all saved by 'faith alone' (sola fide). In other words they're saved through faith, not works.OldCause (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

"Mankind" is widely regarded as non-gender neutral these days. Nearly every major style guide advises using "humanity" or "humankind" instead.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

This was changed by another editor and then by myself, but reverted both times; I suggest adopting contemporary standards.Clean Copytalk 11:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bryan A. Garner, in Garner’s Modern American Usage here
  2. ^ American Sociological Association Style Guide, 2007, p. 4
  3. ^ Casey Miller, Kate Swift, The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing pp. 19,27
  4. ^ Rosalie Maggio, How to Say It p. 631
  5. ^ jjoan ttaber, "Singular They," pp. 210-211, in Vocabula Bound: Essays on the English Language from the Vocabula Review, edited by Robert Hartwell Fiske
  6. ^ Purdue OWL guide
  7. ^ National Council of Teachers of English style guide
  8. ^ MIT style guide
  9. ^ University of Chicago Style guide (5.250)
  10. ^ New York Times manual of style and usage, "Man, mankind"
  11. ^ Public Works and Government Services Canada
  12. ^ ABC Style guide
  13. ^ Princeton Style Guide
  14. ^ Michael Swan, Practical English Usage, 3rd ed. p. 198
  15. ^ A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, p. 409
  16. ^ AP, mild recommendation
  17. ^ Guardian, strong recommendation
  18. ^ BBC, strong recommendation
  19. ^ Reuters
  20. ^ MLA, strong recommendation
  21. ^ Cambridge
In theology, it's common practice to use "mankind" (or "humankind") when referring to humans collectively (e.g. "all mankind were created in the image of God"), and to use "humanity" when referring to the quality of being human (e.g. "the humanity of Christ"). This holds especially true when discussing Calvinism (due in part to historical norms). Although words like "mankind" are falling out of use in the mainstream, uses of "mankind" far outnumber uses of "humankind" or "humanity" (to refer to humans collectively) in contemporary literature on Calvinism.[1][2] I think it's good for Wikipedia articles to reflect their sources as accurately as possible, rather than making linguistic innovations. Phrases appearing in this article such as "humanity possesses free will" sound a little strange. OldCause (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Helm, P. (2008). Calvin: A guide for the perplexed.
  2. ^ Backus, I and Benedict, P. (2011). Calvin and His Influence, 1509–2009.

I can't understand from this article what Calvinism is

And I have a Ph.D. I ran across a reference to a 19th-century American (John Brown) who was a Calvinist. I came to this article and spent a few minutes trying to understand what that meant and I'm still in the dark about it. Please expand the lede. deisenbe (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I will add something to the level. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

New Calvinism

I removed Joshua Harris from the list of names in this section, as he no longer professes Christian faith. While he's notable enough for his own article, and maybe if the narrative in the New Calvinism article was better fleshed out there would be a place for him, in the context of Calvinism writ large I think it's name-dropping/overlinking to mention him. --Michael Snow (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2022

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 current title is the WP:COMMONNAME (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Calvinism → Reformed Protestantism – More neutral name, 'Calvinism' is a nondescript and inappropriate term. Heanor (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose: it appears to be the main name as per Britannica, Oxford Bibliographies and The Canadian Encyclopedia. Veverve (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Veverve, even your Oxford Bibliographies starts with Calvinism was a term first used by Calvin’s opponents. Calvinism has become a widely used label to describe the ideas adopted by Reformed churches across Europe. Some writers prefer to use the label “Reformed” or “Reformed Protestant” to describe a movement that owed much to the insights of a range of reformers and was certainly not solely reliant on John Calvin’s leadership. --Heanor (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Heanor: it is still used as the title of the entry, which supports the idea it is the main term to describe this doctrine. Veverve (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: I've long held that this article was inappropriately named. It's not necessarily a need for a "more neutral name" as mentioned in the nom, but rather the need for a more accurate description. Even the article itself already addresses this: While the Reformed theological tradition addresses all of the traditional topics of Christian theology, the word Calvinism is sometimes used to refer to particular Calvinist views on soteriology and predestination. While some people use the terms interchangeably, that's really an underrepresentation of what they mean. Using the term Reformed Protestantism more accurately describes the tradition rather than pigeon-holing certain views into something they are not. This could be simply summed up by saying "All Calvinism is Reformed Protestantism, but not all Reformed Protestantism is Calvinism". ButlerBlog (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I fail to see how "Calvinism" is not neutral, but in any case it is far more common: 4.6 million Ghits for "Calvinist" vs. 180,000 for "Reformed protestant". The latter is simply not used much: if the word "Calvinist" is avoided, it is usually replaced with simply "Reformed". StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The reason I think I would oppose the move is because the historical literature about 17th century European history I am familiar with uses the term Calvinism as a generic name to refer to all sorts of different Protestant views, currents, and churches of the period. That is the common name used in the historical literature of the 17th century I am familiar with. And the 17th century is the period of European history for which the name Calvinism is the most relevant, I believe. By the 18th century the name starts to become less and less relevant. I think the term Calvinism becomes almost completely irrelevant by the 19th century? warshy (¥¥) 22:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Google Ngrams are very convincing.[1] Rreagan007 (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although I very much appreciate the intent of the proposal, I feel that the term "Calvinism" is distinctive in its broader use throughout scholarly discourse. For example, the primary point of Sproul's What Is Reformed Theology: Understanding the Basics (first published in 1997) is to explain, "What do the five points of Calvinism really mean?" Selderhuis (in his biography John Calvin: A Pilgrim's Life) points out that "Calvinist" Christians should really be called "Reformed" Christians, but he continues to use the term "Calvinism" throughout the entire book in light of its obvious weight in both historic and modern times. Just my two cents. VistaSunset (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment In the historic sense, Calvinism and Reformed Christianity are interchangeable. In the modern sense, Calvinism refers just to the soteriological points, and not the whole of it: the sacramental, covenantal, and confessional aspects. For example, Piper and Macarthur would be considered Calvinists but not Reformed since they eschew covenant theology and confessionalism (see their talk pages for these discussions). I'll oppose the move, but would like to see this page updated (with citations) on the modern distinction. —Confession0791 talk 10:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Move to Reformed: Moving this article to Reformed is the best option as several articles on Wikipedia related to the faith simply use the word "Reformed", e.g. Methodist, Episcopal, Reformed, etc. John Calvin is the leading figure of the Reformed tradition but not the only one. Notably even in its early development, significant figures like Huldrych Zwingli, John Knox, and Thomas Cranmer contributed to Reformed theology. Churches of the Reformed/Calvinist tradition never use the word "Calvinist" in their name, but always use the word "Reformed", e.g. Dutch Reformed Church, United Reformed Church, etc. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Calvinism very easily meets WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2022 (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.

"John Calvin, renounced Roman Catholicism"

I'm not sure this means what it says, and I'd like to see it referenced.

Famously, the church at Geneva did not renounce anything: it became Calvinist, but it remained the catholic church of Geneva until the Swiss federation, at which point it formally effected separation from the Roman church. For all I know Calvin may have personally renounced 'Roman Catholicism', or 'Roman' catholicism, or 'catholicism', but I'd like to see some reference to where I could see what the author means by that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.27.15 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added a "citation needed" tag.
And the tag has been removed, without adding any reference or justification, and with no comment here. So I've added the tag back again. I invite you to address the particular question: did Calvin 'renounce' Roman Catholicism, and if so, in what sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.27.15 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I see that the assertion has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.27.15 (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Only State Church?

Is the Tuvalu church the only Calvinist state church? What about the Church of Scotland? If I knew with any authority I’d propose the change. Powerlad (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this statement is unsourced and dubious. The Church of Scotland has an official status as Scotland's national church. Ltwin (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I took out the claim that it is the only established Calvinist church in the world. Ltwin (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reformed_Christianity/Archive_1&oldid=1217434704"