Template talk:Calvinism/Archive 1

message: I was wondering when you guys would get around to making a Calvinism template!  At any rate, I just wanted to ask whether or not "Baptist" was appropo for this template.  While there certainly are Calvinist Baptists, there are many Baptists who are not Calvinist, and it is kind of its own tradition with its own doctrinal history.  Just a thought.  KHM03 15:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Particular Baptist, maybe? The problem with "Reformed Baptist" is that it is also the name of a very anti-Calvinistic restorationist sect. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The people the rest of us used to call "Campbellites" used to call themselves "Reformed Baptists". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baptist?

message: :Good point about Edwards' breadth of influence.  I do like the idea of pointing to Machen, Van Til and Murray (via Princeton, that is). Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd definitely keep Edwards.  In the first century or two of American history, maybe only Asbury can compare to Edwards in terms of accomplishments and influence...and Asbury's were not (for the most part) theological, but organizational and evangelistic.  Whitefield might compare in terms of the impact of his preaching, but Edwards is up there with the all-time most important American religious figures, and may be #1 (it pains me to say somewhat!).  KHM03 17:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edwards makes the cut

message: Should it be "The Princeton theology" or is the "Princeton theology" okay? Should it go to "theologians" or "theology" Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Princeton theology

message: :: I might be the wrong source to go to, for deciding whether Barth should be listed prominently.  Mainline Reformed are under his sway - but primarily, in my opinion, because he provided a non-Modernist escape from Calvinism.  He was a favorable interpretor of Calvin, but he was far from a confessional Calvinist - and there you have me. I am a confessionalist.  Barth was crypto-univeralist, whose influence is ... well, that's why people even in his own camp call themselves "neo-orthodox" and "neo-calvinist".  They mean that, they are not the stodgy, "17th century scholastic" "neo-gnostic" calvinist hypocrites with their (my) paper popes (standards of orthodoxy) and quaint obsessions with sexual purity: they are a new kind, they are anxious to say; and so they are.  So wouldn't it be a nice, neutral way to solve the question, to combine people like Kuyper, Barth and Torrance, under "neo-Calvinism"?  Mkmcconn (Talk) \
:: Torrance might be seen as a much milder figure than Barth, since his work on trinitarianism and the Fatherhood of God are so greatly admired.  But he is not a Calvinist in anything but the neo-orthodox sense.  Mkmcconn (Talk) \
:: I understand what you're saying about Bunyan.  If it were "Calvinists" instead of "Calvinism", maybe the choice would go the other way. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Barth and Torrance: ''Calvinists'' or ''Calvin admirers''

message: Having inserted Huguenots should we add Boers and Hungarians? Or, is that a troublesome direction? Did I just answer my own question? Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Boers]] and [[Magyars]]

message: The Anglican/Episcopal/Methodist denominations each hold/held Calvinism to some degree at some point (e.g. Cranmer/Packer/Whitefield, respectively)? Should they have some representation in the template, perhaps under the denomination or historical section?
:My opinion is "no", since in Methodism it's always been such a  minority (like Arminians in Calvinism - - they exist, but no one likes to talk about them!), and the Anglican tradition is much bigger than one simple categorization, and prides itself on being a "middle road" between Protestantism and Catholicsm.
:Bottom line: few look at Methodism or Anglicanism as Calvinist families.  KHM03 20:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Denominations

message: Added the Institutes...how could we have forgotten that?  The most important Calvinist document of them all?  I felt stupid when it occurred to me.  KHM03 14:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Institutes

message: Polls are not binding, but they do allow testing for consensus. (See WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus_vs._supermajority.) Please only put "Yes", "No", or "Abstain" in the vote line. Put all discussion below. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformed Baptists straw poll

message: ::Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding. WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY Yakuman 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's in the hope that they will assist by promoting discussion instead of unilateral actions, that the poll is being taken.  Thanks for the reminder, however:  Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, nor of tyranny.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is not a personal attack.  I posted advice that, if you think that others are being trollish, do not react.  But like you, I see no reason why this should be dragged out.  It should have been over days ago.   04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What is not debatable?  The Amyrauldians and Barthians debate that the Calvinists misinterpret Calvin.  Freedom from debatability is a luxury, and not the same thing as NPOV.  Verifiability is the measure. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: see article: Reformed Baptist
People who are interested in learning about Calvinism because it's become a matter of controversy in their own ecclesial environment are probably Baptists. By itself that's not enough reason to include the link, but combined with other reasons -- the common usage of "Calvinist", the tendency (as far as I've seen) for RBs and conservative Presbyterians to make common cause far more often than not -- it just makes more sense to include it. (But then, I might be biased, being an RB myself.)  A.J.A. 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If we define a Calvinist as someone who adheres to monergistic salvation and the doctrines of grace, I support the inclusion of the RB crowd. If the definition of Calvinist is otherwise, I reserve the right to revoke my vote, depending on what definition is presupposed in this discussion.—Emote Talk Page 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My position is that Calvinism has several commonly used meanings (including a strict adherence to one particular, precisely defined branch of the Reformed tradition, an adherence to the DoG, and a general position within the Reformed tradition [cf. the quote about Barth above from The Harvard Theological Review, etc.]), and we should be inclusive of all of these meanings even if we don't personally like all of them. (I can supply multiple references for each if anyone is in doubt about the multifaceted usage.) Some would exclude Barth as being outside of Calvinism, and others would further exclude Charles Spurgeon, John Piper, and Tim Keller as being outside, etc. etc. (you know what they say: Presbyterians do schism like Italians do spaghetti). However, the neutrality policy requires that we represent all significant points of view on the matter, which leads toward broader inclusion, not exclusion. In other words, we must be descriptionists (i.e., noting how the word is used), not prescriptionists (i.e., saying how it ought to be used). Now, who wants a big group hug? :-) --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spurgeon was quoted as saying, "It is our firm belief, that what is commonly called Calvinism, is neither more nor less than the good old Gospel of the Puritans, the Martyrs, the Apostles, and of our Lord Jesus Christ." Evidently he had no difficulty with the label. Aside from the issue of believer baptism, he had much in common with the Presbyterians of his day.Brian0324 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And he still does! --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Reformed Baptist churches are Baptist: a coherent, unified category.  They differ from the rest of us by not baptizing their children, and by practicing congregationalist polity, etc.: like Spurgeon, Carl F.H. Henry, John Piper, who unlike other Baptists are Calvinists. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're approaching this very subjectively, Yakuman.  Particular or Reformed Baptists are Baptists who are also Calvinists.  Simple. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Those who want nothing to do with the term and concept of Calvinism are not Reformed Baptists.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just one small note: Tim Keller is not a Baptist, as Yakuman implies here. He's a baby-baptizing presbyterian. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are all sorts of people who use the name "Christian" and might be considered by some to be the farthest thing from what is described in Scripture. If we approached Wikipedia according to the very narrow definitions that are provided in the Bible, it would be an impossible task to reconcile every article in order to exclude "false professors" by that standard. The same principle applies to the Template:Calvinism - if a notable figure like Spurgeon claimed to teach Calvinism - and is controversial because of his Calvinistic stance, then it is reasonable to include Calvinists who do not fit cleanly into Calvin's own definition - if he had one.Brian0324 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls - meta 

message: :see article: Reformed Baptist
People who are interested in learning about Calvinism because it's become a matter of controversy in their own ecclesial environment are probably Baptists. By itself that's not enough reason to include the link, but combined with other reasons -- the common usage of "Calvinist", the tendency (as far as I've seen) for RBs and conservative Presbyterians to make common cause far more often than not -- it just makes more sense to include it. (But then, I might be biased, being an RB myself.)  A.J.A. 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we define a Calvinist as someone who adheres to monergistic salvation and the doctrines of grace, I support the inclusion of the RB crowd. If the definition of Calvinist is otherwise, I reserve the right to revoke my vote, depending on what definition is presupposed in this discussion.—Emote Talk Page 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My position is that Calvinism has several commonly used meanings (including a strict adherence to one particular, precisely defined branch of the Reformed tradition, an adherence to the DoG, and a general position within the Reformed tradition [cf. the quote about Barth above from The Harvard Theological Review, etc.]), and we should be inclusive of all of these meanings even if we don't personally like all of them. (I can supply multiple references for each if anyone is in doubt about the multifaceted usage.) Some would exclude Barth as being outside of Calvinism, and others would further exclude Charles Spurgeon, John Piper, and Tim Keller as being outside, etc. etc. (you know what they say: Presbyterians do schism like Italians do spaghetti). However, the neutrality policy requires that we represent all significant points of view on the matter, which leads toward broader inclusion, not exclusion. In other words, we must be descriptionists (i.e., noting how the word is used), not prescriptionists (i.e., saying how it ought to be used). Now, who wants a big group hug? :-) --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spurgeon was quoted as saying, "It is our firm belief, that what is commonly called Calvinism, is neither more nor less than the good old Gospel of the Puritans, the Martyrs, the Apostles, and of our Lord Jesus Christ." Evidently he had no difficulty with the label. Aside from the issue of believer baptism, he had much in common with the Presbyterians of his day.Brian0324 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And he still does! --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Reformed Baptist churches are Baptist: a coherent, unified category.  They differ from the rest of us by not baptizing their children, and by practicing congregationalist polity, etc.: like Spurgeon, Carl F.H. Henry, John Piper, who unlike other Baptists are Calvinists. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're approaching this very subjectively, Yakuman.  Particular or Reformed Baptists are Baptists who are also Calvinists.  Simple. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Those who want nothing to do with the term and concept of Calvinism are not Reformed Baptists.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just one small note: Tim Keller is not a Baptist, as Yakuman implies here. He's a baby-baptizing presbyterian. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are all sorts of people who use the name "Christian" and might be considered by some to be the farthest thing from what is described in Scripture. If we approached Wikipedia according to the very narrow definitions that are provided in the Bible, it would be an impossible task to reconcile every article in order to exclude "false professors" by that standard. The same principle applies to the Template:Calvinism - if a notable figure like Spurgeon claimed to teach Calvinism - and is controversial because of his Calvinistic stance, then it is reasonable to include Calvinists who do not fit cleanly into Calvin's own definition - if he had one.Brian0324 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RB Discussion