Talk:Reformed Christianity/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Once saved, always saved

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hyper-Calvinism

message: 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)
thread_title: For all the Calvinists out there...

message: 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)
thread_title: Wow!

message: 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)
replies: text: And Michael Servetus.  :)   KHM03 10:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: That was Calvin's intent, was it not?  KHM03 20:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everybody wants theocracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fine with me.  But can't we find a way to call the TULIP points sinful?  ;)  KHM03 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Summary in intro

message: 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)
thread_title: Doctrine (opposing)

message: 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)
thread_title: Founder of Calvinism

message: 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)
thread_title: Delisted GA

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Marx on Calvinism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  re: help me understand 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  help me understand 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Usury 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks! ZARguy (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huldrych Zwingli 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Reformed Tradition is more than just Calvinism, even in the sixteenth century. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, fair enough. I support its removal. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does neo-orthodoxy belong? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How 'bout "form of Christian practice?" JFHutson (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neo-Calvinism as definition of Calvinism? 

message: Opening discussion on the information added by Speahlman.
Here were the people listed
*Abraham Kuyper
*Leonhard Ragaz
*Hermann Kutter
*Karl Barth
*Eduard Thurneysen
*Emil Brunner
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: OK, I have started Otto Weber (theologian). StAnselm (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I  would go with you on all of those except Moltmann. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, so what about Kuyper, Bavinck, Warfield, Barth, Van Til, Packer and Sproul? StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good list. What about Michael Horton and David F. Wells ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  20th Century Influences 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Christian Reconstructionism does not deserve a section 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  False dichotomies between other Protestantism vs. just explaining basics? 

message: * "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Polity Bifurcation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Calvinism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131220051743/http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=17772 to http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=17772
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150701182929/http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/calvinism-old-and-new/ to http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/calvinism-old-and-new/
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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  obvious bias 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140412134752/http://wcrc.ch/wcrc-member-churches/ to http://wcrc.ch/wcrc-member-churches/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=%2Fethics%2Fligon_duncan_critique.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Calvin and the Canons of Dort

message: I want to start a discussion here that I believe is important distinction. Reformed theology consists of the three "C's".
* Calvinism (TULIP) 
* Confessionalism (holding to the Westminster Confession of Faith or another Reformed confession)  
* Covenant theology
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Calvinism ≠ Reformed 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pelagianism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge Reformed churches here 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Augustinian Calvinism 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes - there was an unsuccessful move request just a few threads up on this page. StAnselm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  {T|C}  20:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Renaming Calvinism => Reformed tradition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Five points of Calvinism: Sola fide 

message: "Mankind" is widely regarded as non-gender neutral these days. Nearly every major style guide advises using "humanity" or "humankind" instead.Bryan A. Garner, in Garner’s Modern American Usage hereAmerican Sociological Association Style Guide, 2007, p. 4Casey Miller, Kate Swift, The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing pp. 19,27Rosalie Maggio, How to Say It p. 631jjoan ttaber, "Singular They," pp. 210-211, in Vocabula Bound: Essays on the English Language from the Vocabula Review, edited by Robert Hartwell FiskePurdue OWL guideNational Council of Teachers of English style guideMIT style guideUniversity of Chicago Style guide (5.250)New York Times manual of style and usage, "Man, mankind"Public Works and Government Services CanadaABC Style guidePrinceton Style GuideMichael Swan, Practical English Usage, 3rd ed. p. 198A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, p. 409AP, mild recommendationGuardian, strong recommendationBBC, strong recommendationReutersMLA, strong recommendationCambridge 
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)
replies: text: 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.Helm, P. (2008). Calvin: A guide for the perplexed.Backus, I and Benedict, P. (2011). Calvin and His Influence, 1509–2009. 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)
thread_title:  Gender-neutral language 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I see what you mean. I will add something to the level. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't understand from this article what Calvinism is 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Calvinism 

message: :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)
replies: text: Calvinism →  – More neutral name, 'Calvinism' is a nondescript and inappropriate term. Heanor (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 March 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I took out the claim that it is the only established Calvinist church in the world. Ltwin (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only State Church?