Talk:Calvinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Calvinism article.
Article policies
Calvinism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Note: If you wish to debate any of the following questions after reading the FAQ, please do it at the appropriate links:

The above are Frequently Held Debates (FHDs)
Topic Co-ordination We're attempting to co-ordinate a few pages together, including Calvinism. Feel free to discuss this at Talk:Calvinism. Other pages include:
To-do list for Calvinism: edit · history · watch · refresh
This box indicates how close the editors think this article is to good article status. It is not an independent review, but an aid to the editors improving the article.
  1. Well written
    • Prose: Unchecked
    • Style: Unchecked
  2. Verifiable
  3. Broad in coverage
    • All major aspects: Covers all major areas, 8 May 2007
    • No unnecessary detail: Unchecked
  4. Neutral point of view: Unchecked
  5. Stable: Unchecked
  6. Images: Unchecked
Archive
Archives
Talk archive


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Calvin and Salvation

Can a contributor here add a one sentence summary of the Calvin view of salvation to the salvation page? We need some help --Just nigel 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like someone else had a shot at this already, but I've gone through and made some changes (eg. sola gratia is not "an alternative view" to sola fide :) ).
-- TimNelson 12:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I made a quick edit of the calvinism page but it is dirty, and shoudl be cleaned up. Wyatt 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calvinism and Hungary

[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.3.181.216 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC). [2]

[edit] Intro paragraph

Flex, the introduction is poorly worded and does not give the reader much useful information at all. To say that "Calvinism is a system of Christian theology and an approach to Christian life" is about as helpful as saying that an apple is a round thing that grows on a tree and eventually falls off. Such an explanation is so general that it's meaningless. Furthermore, the first sentence is inordinately long and unintelligible. I don't even understand what the end of the sentence means: "his interpretation of Scripture, and perspective on Christian life and theology." Since my edit seems to have been objectionable, I ask you to suggest a rewording for the intro paragraph.—Emote Talk Page 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot about this. I agree that the old intro was confusing, and I have made some revisions to your latest. Feel free to continue tweaking. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Point Calvinism

This is used by many people now, that explains Double Predestination and Best of All Possible Worlds and is an important concept to Calvinism. It should be mentioned somehow, so I added it. Wyatt 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed this because it does not seem common. As far as I can tell this is primarily a Piper thing[3][4] that is not very wide-spread. Does any other well-known Calvinist use this term? If not, I'd suggest that it would be more apropos at John Piper (theologian). --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is a Calvinist?

And where does one go to find out? The page on "Calvinist" merges into here. Are Reformed Baptists Calvinists? What is the difference between being Calvinistic and being Reformed? We should have a discussion of this somewhere... StAnselm 03:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as I have recently said at Template_talk:Calvinism and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_4#Category:Reformed_theologians, that there is no consensus on this matter and the terms "Calvinist" and "Reformed" are often used rather freely and interchangeably in reliable sources to describe anyone from Calvin to Spurgeon to Barth. Any attempt to enforce the distinctions of our particular theological viewpoint on these terms is therefore not in keeping with the WP's neutrality policy. We could, however, make an effort to describe the various categorizations of Calvin's followers from reliable sources, and perhaps this would assist in coming up with a better category scheme, too. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and we probably should have a explanation of the terms "Calvinist" and "Reformed" in this article as well. (Interestingly, some people use "Calvinist" in a wider sense than "Reformed", and some use it in a narrower sense.) Yes - I meant a description rather than enforcing distinctions. Though presumably those in the Wiki Calvinism Project are allowed to use their own definitions. But I noticed there was a comment on Reformed Baptist concerning some thinking that Reformed Baptists are not really Reformed - there should be an expanded explanation here, possibly tied to a section on the Reformed view of the Sacraments. StAnselm 23:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for it if we can do so from reliable sources. --Flex (talk|contribs) 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other problems

This article needs a lot more work, particularly on the evangelical nature of Calvinism (central beliefs rather than distinctives), the Calvinistic view of Scripture, and the sacraments. Any takers? StAnselm 04:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, and it needs citations from reliable sources all around. This is particularly important since this is the flagship article for WP:CALVINISM. We need to push this to GA ASAP, IMHO. TTFN. etc. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is a pretty good essay, and as such its statements are readily supportable. It only requires hunting down those specific sources, from which we brought these statements out from our general memories. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size & educational institutions

Since the ideal article size is 25k, and this is currently 32k, I'd suggest moving at least most of the educational institutions out to pages with another name. Examples would be:

  • List of Calvinist Tertiary Institutions (since the word "College" can mean different things in different parts of the English-speaking world)
  • List of Calvinist Seminaries or List of Reformed Seminaries

Or, we could even refer everyone to Category:Reformed church theological colleges and seminaries, although it might need some subdivision then.

-- TimNelson 07:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The size limitation in WP:SIZE is not strict, and the calculations for size exclude the "appendices" such as references, external links, and "see also"s, which are counted in the raw byte reports. That's not to say that your suggestions shouldn't be implemented in some form but just that I don't think it is required. --Flex (talk|contribs) 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I know it's not strict, but I personally like shorter articles where possible :). I didn't know that they didn't include references, etc. I wasn't sure whether the list or the category was a better idea, though.
--TimNelson 12:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say we can have both a list and a cat. We could lump them all together as List of Calvinist institutions of higher education and then have two sections on that page like how they're divided up now, or we could split them into two separate lists: colleges/universities (undergrad and graduate institutions) and seminaries (graduate institutions). I don't think it's a big deal either way. We can provide redirects for alternate namings (college, etc.). --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in the distinction you've drawn. I would've said that Colleges/Universities are those that, while Calvinist, don't have Divinity/Theology as their major focus, whereas Seminaries are the ones that do. I know that that's not historically/etymologically accurate, but that's how I tend to think of them.
-- TimNelson 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Btw, what would you say to a List of Calvinist educational institutions, which could also include the lower school levels?
-- TimNelson 10:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've done this. -- TimNelson 01:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Calvinism

I've also created a stub-like History of Calvinism article, which may also help us shorten the main article.

-- TimNelson 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Generally I think WP:SUMMARY (et al.) imply that forking off subtopics should happen organically (i.e., a sub-article is created when a particular section has grown too long, rather than starting a new article that has little coverage in the central article, as ISTM happened with John Calvin's view of Scripture), but this topic seems broad enough and important enough to merit its own article without going through the organic process. Of course, if it doesn't get expanded, then it might as well just exist as part of the present article. --Flex (talk|contribs) 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I partly did it to show up the holes in our coverage (see the red links for details). I also created it because I really wanted an article on "Calvinist Revivals", or something like that, cross-linking to things like Awakening Generation. But then I realised that this was a subset of the History of Calvinism, so I created the article, and hopefully it will be expanded as time goes on.
-- TimNelson 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Barth

The reformed tradition disowns Karl Barth. Out of TULIP, He rejects 'L'. He also rejects the necessity of faith for salvation which Calvinists hold like Arminians. (Calvinists differ in faith's cause though) As a result, Karl Barth is a universalist since he believes that all without exception are saved. Even unbelievers. He shares similar foundation as calvinists but He has gone another direction (heresy).

This has been argued at great length on Template:Calvinism. I'll refer you to the discussion there.
-- TimNelson 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute Sovereignty

I wonder why there is no mention of sovereignty. It is much greater than other points even TULIP. TULIP is really a summation of how this idea is worked out.

God working his plan out in the future and present by his will. ---Predestination. God working out his plan of salvation by his will . ---TULIP God working out his plan completely. ---Absolute Sovereignty

Sovereignty is absolute because no one can thwart God's good gracious and wise will. The idea is tied to God exercising his omnipotence, omniscience, infinite wisdom, grace, love, and desire to be gloried out in their fullest expression within creation for the good of those who believe. It is worked out in ways we cannot fully understand on this side of things. The differences arise from God's particular and definite design for creation and salvation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.36.81.50 (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lutherans

Why are they not mentioned either. Calvinists did not go much further than Luther. The disagreement was mainly over the eucharist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.36.81.50 (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

From what I've been told, Luther was what we today would call a Calvinist, but modern-day Lutherans are mostly not. If that's true, I'd agree Luther merits a mention, but Lutherans probably do not. Besides which, Lutherans are mentioned.
-- TimNelson 10:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a tertiary source that mixes some intuitive observation with wishfull thinking – it actually depends on whether Luther, in his texts, unambiguously take the position of TULIP, which might be possible, or not. As I recall it (intuitive and wishfull thinking here too, from the position of a modernist Lutheran, i.e.!) the main split between reformeds and Lutherans was that the reformed accepted the free choice while Luther denied its existence. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I was wrong about that! Neither Lutheranism nor Calvinism adher to Decision theology (not me either). Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to question that :). Maybe the person who said it had run into Lutherans who weren't following Luther :). I thought the differences were more based around ecclesiology. -- TimNelson 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Todo list for this article

Here are some of the things that probably need work as of 10:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC); I've listed them here to help us focus:

  • Once we've figured out what to call it, the Educational Institutions list should be removed as per the Good Article criteria (specifically criterion 1b)
  • I (TimNelson) personally think we need to rearrange the "Attempts to reform Calvinism" and "Other variations in Calvinism" sections, especially noting which are considered beyond the pale by traditional Calvinists (ie. neo-orthodoxy would be, but neo-Calvinism probably wouldn't be)
  • Need for information on the Calvinistic view of Scripture. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Covenant Theology is the relevant term here
No, Covenant Theology is something different, though it is related to a the Calvinistic hermeneutic. But there's also a Calvinistic doctrine of Scripture - sometimes thought of as "neither liberal nor fundamentalist".
All so-called "evangelical" non-Reformed theologies... which have an inadequate view of sovereign grace, have also an inadequate view of Scripture. (Van Til)
StAnselm 13:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Evangelistic nature of Calvinism (central beliefs rather than distinctives) -- StAnselm (talk · contribs) mentioned this above; is this a claim that Calvinists believe that Calvinism is essential to being a Christian?)

Hope the list above helps. Feel free to update it, but when you do, change the date at the top (Original list by TimNelson 10:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

None of the above are in the todo list because I think they're still up for discussion, etc. -- TimNelson 09:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the Calvinist's view of evangelism is obviously informed by his understanding of the Gospel, what he presents as the Gospel should be expected to be consistent with his understanding of it: i.e., Calvinism. But that doesn't mean that we think that only Calvinists are Christians, or that no one preaches the Gospel at all except us. On the contrary, that is usually not what we mean, and many of us would speak derogatorily of that view as being a form of hyper-Calvinism (the article by that name lists this as one "type" of hyper-Calvinism). We are saved by grace through faith; and faith is not the same thing as understanding. But we expect understanding to improve as a Christian matures. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, though, when some preach anti-Calvinism as though salvation is discovered by rejecting Calvinism, we'll have a hard time calling that the Gospel. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] supremacy vs sovereignty

"Sovereignty" is a familiar word to us; but it may not be readily understandable to a general reader. Do you agree? I have tentatively replaced "sovereignty" with the word "supremacy" in the opening sentence. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that though I think it loses some of its nuance (cf. sovereignty), but I don't think the Warfield quote given in citation is particularly elucidating of that point. It's a bit better in context with the subsequent sentences of his article, but surely we can find something clearer and more direct than that. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm confident that we can find something clearer (I think it's direct enough to the point, but not to the language). But I think we need to get serious about locking in the content, with appropriate citations. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If we strongly link "majesty" (a term that is at least as obscure as sovereignty, I'd say) with supremacy, I'd say you're right about the quote, but I don't think that connection is obvious. Let's find something better. I fully agree about getting serious with the citations. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many and where?

Nowhere in this article does it give any type of numerical information in regard to the current calvinist population, whether in the world or nation-by-nation. Are there any estimates out there? 74.110.71.97 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to say. One estimate would be to sum the numbers of the Reformed churches. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd say any such number would be meaningless. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Merge from Five points of Calvinism

I propose this merge because we have the same information duplicated in several places: this article, that article, and the articles on each point. Since that article isn't much longer than the text on the subject in this article, let's just combine them, redirect that one, and let the individual articles give relevant details. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be keen that people don't confuse the two. ;) I think we should leave it as it is. StAnselm 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Anselm, but think that that section in the Calvinism article could be shortened (possibly by moving stuff to the other article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimNelson (talk • contribs)
I'm certainly open to other options, but my question is why have that article at all? We have a summary here and a slightly longer summary there, and then details in the main articles. Let's cut out the middle man. Obviously we mustn't cut it out of this article altogether, but this article can cover the points in the same depth and with more context (e.g., "the five points are not an accurate summary of Calvinism, just the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism -- see all the other sections of this article") as that the other summary article. I just want to see all this stuff better integrated. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, now I'm not sure. So just ignore what I said :). -- TimNelson 05:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Separate small introductory section and main article is fine. I.e.: it's pretty OK, as it is now, since Calvinism gives an overview, and 5 points of a specific detail in the Calvinist system. Merging would create too long a text. The introductory section could be shortened, however, to keep the duplicate information as little as possible. In a few special cases, where many articles need the same introductory to another article, a transclusion could possibly be used to avoid need to update several introductories. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You're "i.e." is incorrect. This article gives an overview, five points of Calvinism gives a slightly longer overview, and then the individual articles for each point give the details. Anyway, your proposal for a transclusion is a good idea. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the articles should stay seperate. Right now they are roughly the same size but over the course of the next few years there may be many things about the five points that editors will wish to document and add to the encyclopedia. If the articles are seperate, they can do this without unnecessarily swelling the main article. It does seem a little redundant with the small amount of information thats there now. Brando130 15:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not proposing that we merge, e.g., total depravity into Calvinism. Any further details on total depravity should go into its individual article. My point is, we have two summaries of the five points out there in addition to the detailed explanations in their individual articles. I see no reason why these two summaries shouldn't be combined (by merging into Calvinism or by transclusion). --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I see the point. After looking more at the detailed articles on each point, I agree the summary page 'Five points of Calvinism' could be merged into Calvinism. Sure seems like this has been open to discussion for a long time, since early June. We should probably add a request for comment flag to this discussion, and if the consensus holds, do it. Brando130 17:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, OK. I'll retract my vote against the merge. StAnselm 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Merge from Five points of Calvinism

The discussion above has not reached a consensus on whether we should merge, but no one seems violently opposed either. We'd like some outside input. 16:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be merged...I see no reason why not because the Five points of Calvinism are apart of calvinism and should be treated as such. There is also the four and three point views of Calvinism so clearly it would be inapproprite as a independent article. At the very least there needs to be a section of the article on calvinism that links to this article. Cajones 21:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A merge makes sense. (Seenitall 13:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenitall (talk • contribs)

[edit] As a general point

The doctrines of grace are accepted by far more than just 'Calvinists'. To place them under Calvinism would be to do a disservice to Biblical Theologians of a variety of standpoints.Bucer 18:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this related to the point above (Merge from 5 points of calvinism)? If so, how? -- TimNelson 05:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It turned out the answer was 'no', so Bucer added the "As a general point" heading at that point -- TimNelson 03:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, who are these multitudes who accept the doctrines of grace (aka, the five points) but aren't Calvinists? --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For those other groups that embrace Calvinism or the five points it can be noted pages about them with linking Calvinism to the page. (Seenitall 13:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenitall (talk • contribs)

[edit] Infra and Supra lapsarianism.

The article defines "infra" as "after", and "supra" as "before". I'm no Latin expert, but I'm pretty sure those definitions are reversed. "Infra" should refer to below or before. (Hence "infrared" indicating light with wavelengths below that of red light) While "supra" is after, or on top of. I have no idea if this means the theological concepts described by either term are also mistaken, but it appears the translation of the latin prefixes definitely is.

207.67.97.226 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, though I don't no Latin either. The theological concepts were correct. StAnselm 05:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I do know some Latin, and the definitions were correct as written (the words have varied senses, just as many words in English do). Cf. [5] and [6]. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unconditional election

You may be interested in contributing to Talk:Unconditional_election#Church_Fathers_on_the_doctrine. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of the Covenant Theology section

I tagged the new Covenant Theology section as jargony and non-neutral -- the former because it doesn't speak in language appropriate for a general encyclopedia, and the latter because, while I am no expert, I think there are several views of the structure of covenants of redemption/grace/works that are current in Calvinism. Moreover, when it comes to Covenant Theology, I tend to think less of these "abstract" covenants and more of the unity and unfolding nature of the biblical covenants, which doesn't even get a mention. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I made those contributions. I was actually a bit surprised by the jargony and non-neutral tagging. I tried to encapsulate the idea of a covenantal relationship (as opposed to...?) as concisely as possible, and didn't think it was too jargony. An example to explain the two sentences you asked for clarification is in stubbing your toe. Cause is stubbing, effect is "ouch", this is a natural relationship. Stubbing, then the agreement that you rush me to a hospital afterwards, this is covenantal relationship. I just thought this description was a bit low brow, and so tried to use more concise terminology. And I thought the quote from Westminster was appropriate to show this is integral to the Calvinist tradition.
as for neutrality, it is true that there are varying views on the covenants. This was meant to be a concise summary of the common elements of the historic doctrine. As for the covenants of works and grace, they are prominent in historic thinking as law and gospel. The biblical covenants are mentioned: "The Covenant of Grace is instituted at the fall, and administered through successive historic covenants seen in Scripture for the purpose of redemption." I just chose not to go into detail since detail is provided in the main page.
if you can suggest a better way to phrase these things, please do! --128.32.90.114 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There are still neutrality issues - not everyone recognises a Covenant of Redemption, for example. We also need to recognise the different definitions given - at the moment, there is basically no reference to promise, which is a significant failing. And we definitely need to get rid of this thing about "natural relationship". StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Flex, nice concise summary. A little tweaking since covenant is a function of God's condescension as much as his sovereignty. Not everyone today recognizes the covenant of redemption, but it was common in writings at least to the 18th century (Muller's 4 volume work is helpful here). But point taken, the emphasis has always been on God's relationship to humans. Promise is implicit in "gospel", but you're right: the covenant of grace needs be be described explicitly in those terms. And what is wrong with "natural relationship"? Maybe not the most agreeable terminology, but it helps contrast the nature of a covenantal relationship --128.32.90.114 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The cross or Calvin's image?

Come on, that black cross on a stark white page is ugly and way bright, put Calvin's image there in place of it, the page is ugly the way it looks now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfire777 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)