Talk:Reformed fundamentalism

message: This subject looks pretty gruesome to me (as a Wesleyan evangelical).
BUT...you may want to contact Flex, Jim Ellis, and Mkmcconn, the Three Reformed Stooges Wise Men of Wikipedia, who are ga ga over all things Calvinist.
Good to have you around...feel free to jump into our Calvinism vs. Methodism dialogues.
KHM03 20:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ewww...

message: I can't help feeling that the article uses the terms, "Reformed" and "Fundamentalism" in a synthetic way (Reformed + censoriousness).  There is such a thing as "Reformed Fundamentalism", as represented by Carl McIntire or Ian Paisley; however, this article does not describe groups or movements, but rather an idea, or rather, a critical personal opinion directed toward an anonymous group.
Note that the article does not specify any names (if it did, it might be considered libelous, wouldn't it?), it does not cite any source (although I'm sure that there are many who believe that Calvinists are capable of having both, strong and incorrect opinions, and overly-harsh views), and discovers fault fault by insinuating that the targeted Christians have deviated from some unmentioned standard of moderation.  Let me see what I might find just in the first bullet-point, as an example:
* There may be an over emphasis  — how shall we decide what is an "over" emphasis?
* on the belief in predestination or election as a prerequisite to a true conversion experience.  — I'm not sure, frankly, who would say this but let's say that I would.  I believe that God had mercy on me, despite the fact that I am not deserving.  I become more convinced of this every day.  I didn't always believe this way.  When I didn't, I wasn't as converted as I am now.  
* Some may not consider those holding to Arminian or Wesleyan theology as truly understanding the gospel.   — Of course.  However, our Wesleyan or Arminian friends do not regard my views as a true understanding of the Gospel, either.  
I'm guilty, I guess.  If a Reformed believer strays from the mean of broader evangelicalism, and professes a conviniced faith according to the Reformed Christian confessions of faith, he will have wandered into the cross-hairs of this article's censorious aim.  It is simply a personal essay.  I've written a few of those myself; but they are eventually heavily edited for suitability, or deleted.  So should this be, and speedily so.   
WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, No personal essays.  No propaganda. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinctive use of terms 

message: It might surprise you that this article was written by a convinced Calvinist who would defend the 5 points and the Reformed confessions. In response to your point that the essay is about "an idea" rather than about any specific group, or about some "anonymous group", I would point out that fundamentalism itself is a phenomenon that is observed in many denominations. Articles have been written about Catholic fundamentalism, why can't the phenomenon exist in Reformed churches as well?
: It doesn't surprise me at all that you are a Calvinist (I peeked).  There is no reason not to write about Reformed fundamentalism - the article in its present form gives a better start toward doing that, than the one that it replaces.  The issue is, what is a Reformed fundamentalist - neutrally, sociologically?  Where does Reformed Fundamentalism reside in the spectrum of the Reformed churches?  Who are their leaders? Who are their scholars? Who speaks for Reformed Fundamentalism?  Can you point to books that defend it under that name?  
: The article was a critical essay based on personal observations (as I said, I don't have a problem with that for a start - but articles can't remain in that form).   If you're going to call all traditionalists "Fundamentalists", it will likely be in the derogatory and pejorative sense that you use this term; however, I will support a neutral article (the link you have points to Traditionalist Catholic, by the way - a more proper and neutral name for a documentable movement, and a respectable model for the article that should be written under this topic).  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It all seems pretty ghastly to me.  ;)  KHM03 11:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Surprised 

message: Actually, I find your comments helpful. So let me come up with some proposals to expand this article. I would suggest the following subtopics where I think we can stay fair and factual.
*List of Common beliefs shared with Christian fundamentalism
*Distinctives that make these fundamentalists "Reformed" (
*Sociological characteristics (i.e. standards of piety and behavior)
I admit the term "fundamentalist" is very problematic. Some would call me a fundamentalist because I believe in an ordinary 6 day creation, not to the framework hypothesis. So you are right. Traditionalism does not mean fundamentalism. I would consider myself a traditionalist, but not a fundamentalist (though I grew up in a "Bible" church that proudly called itself fundamentalist).
We can reword these topics. Please suggest others that might apply. Gregory Y 15:40:43, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
: We have two articles on Wikipedia, illustrating the two different ways that this term, Fundamentalism, is used.  Under Christian fundamentalism the editors have tried to use the term in a very narrow sense, to refer to the Christian, evangelical movement that began at the end of the 19th century, which tried to re-assert supernaturalism as a fundamental aspect of Christian faith, and which later became a distinct and separate movement of its own.  This article only applies the label to those groups that use it to describe themselves, as you used it when you were growing up in the Bible church.
: The Fundamentalism article takes a very different, broad approach.  Although it begins by noting that Fundamentalism has a scholarly use, even these scholars apply the term without regard for whether those so described strongly object to the label, or not.  This article also illustrates how people have begun to use the term to express their own unreasoning bigotry toward almost anyone with convictions stronger or different from their own, about virtually any issue under the sun.  It's fun to google for atheistic fundamentalism, etc.  But, it is not a scholarly use of the term; it's a short-hand way of saying, "tyrannical", "mean-spirited", "narrow", "rigid", and (ironically) "censorious". Lately, because of associations with Islamic revolutions and suicide-bombing,  the word now has come to have colorations of "violent" and "irreconcilable", even when the so-called fundamentalism concerns the most the innocuous subjects, as in open source fundamentalism!.  
: I think it's quite clear that the first approach is the most solidly reliable, which normally only uses the term to describe those who use it for themselves.  The second use of the term is less reliable, and is proving difficult to control, which uses it for the purposes of comparative religion only.  But anyone who uses the term in the broadest way (as a criticism) is attempting to use the wild-fire of hatred to shed light on an issue.  It can't be done. 
: When using any ambiguous term (especially one so easily mis-used), it's important to make the sense absolutely clear if the editors allow the use of more than one sense through the course of the article.  Do you agree? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals 

message: I had never come across the term, and on the face of it, "reformed fundamentalism" can only mean: fundamentalism that has reformed itself, becoming less fundamentalistic. So the exact opposite of what it intends to mean. These shorthand forms can sound very strange. Would "Protestant fundamentalism" be something else? It's less likely that one would imagine protesting fundamentalists when hearing it. Although they always are. Arminden (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Reformed refers to Calvinism (also called the Reformed tradition or Reformed Protestantism).Editor2020 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is that really the correct name? 

message: A significant portion of this article is already unsourced, with the majority of recent edits simply compounding that problem by adding new material or significantly changing existing material without including sources.  As for the current sources, most of them are primary, with only a few secondary sources.  If the best we can come up with is an article that is based only a few mostly primary sources, then this article is original research (OR) and fails to meet notability guidelines (GNG).  New material needs to be cited, and those sources need to be secondary in nature. Please review WP:NOR & WP:GNG. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research