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 written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
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.
I'm not sure this means what it says, and I'd like to see it referenced.
Famously, the church at Geneva did not renounce anything: it became Calvinist, but it remained the catholic church of Geneva until the Swiss federation, at which point it formally effected separation from the Roman church. For all I know Calvin may have personally renounced 'Roman Catholicism', or 'Roman' catholicism, or 'catholicism', but I'd like to see some reference to where I could see what the author means by that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.27.15 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a "citation needed" tag.
And the tag has been removed, without adding any reference or justification, and with no comment here. So I've added the tag back again. I invite you to address the particular question: did Calvin 'renounce' Roman Catholicism, and if so, in what sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.27.15 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the assertion has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.27.15 (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I took out the claim that it is the only established Calvinist church in the world. Ltwin (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turretin is noted as a Calvinist theologian on his entry, but he is not listed here under 'influential' Calvinist theologians. Should he be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C5:4000:50F0:39EF:A8AD:A6BD:DBCC (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that we only have the categories of Reformers/20th century/contemporary, and Turretin was post-Reformed. If we go broader we can also include John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Hodge. StAnselm (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarebare555 has decided to exclude references to "Reformed Baptists" from the article with this edit and this edit. Jarebare555, do you have any sources that exclude Reformed Baptists from the Calvinist family? The names you removed were supported with sources as being part of the "New Calvinism". Ltwin (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My sources would be all of the non-Lutheran reformers and Reformed confessions, as well as the historical fact that Baptists never referred to themselves as "Reformed" till recently. "Calvinist" is an overly broad and unhelpful term as the article itself states. Baptists have a different tradition and disagree with all the Reformed on key issues of doctrine. "Particular Baptist" is much more accurate to describe what was called "Reformed Baptist" in the article. But again, they are not Reformed as considering one to be Reformed based on their adherence to the 5 Doctrines of Grace is insultingly reductive. Jarebare555 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarebare555: You've cited no sources. You need a secondary source (and probably more that alone, considering there are already sources cited in the article that support exactly the opposite). With no source, it's "original research", which we do not do here (see WP:NOR). You MUST directly support anything added to the article that conflict with your change. Please make sure you understand WP:RS and how to cite a source. If not, seek assistance. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter link contains about 50 sources, including:
Books and Chapters
Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008).
“A House of Cards? A Response to Bingham, Cribben, and Caughey,” in Matthew Bingham, Chris Caughey, R. Scott Clark, Crawford Gribben, and D. G. Hart, On Being Reformed: Debates Over a Theological Identity (London: Palgrave-Pivot, 2018), 69–89. Jarebare555 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Being Reformed: Debates Over a Theological Identity is literally a discussion about how the "Reformed" identity is contested. The author of Chapter 2 says the term "Reformed Baptists" "does not imply any logical inconsistency". Ltwin (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I don't see much in Jarebare555's list that would acceptable to many editors. While I would accept Clark as reliable, citing his blog is questionable. And Collin Hansen's book (which Clark notes) is full of just as lettered men that disagree directly with Clark's position. So one man's opinion isn't enough to state as hard fact (were you to apply it as attribution, that would be another matter). The latter link contains about 50 sources: Most of those are links to his own blog, others are links to other blogs. Generally, blogs are not citable as a source. There's not enough editorial oversight. But beyond that, just dropping that here doesn't do much. Are you saying you don't know how to cite a source? Or is it that you want someone to do it for you? ButlerBlog (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could cite all kinds of primary sources to make a case, but as the leaders of the Reformed faith were more concerned with actually reforming the church, you won't find Calvin defining "reformed" in the way you're asking. And I've already been told that for me to make a case based on what is distinct about Reformed theology and Baptist theology and where all the reformers stood, would be to engage in "original research." Two of the major distinctions of Reformed theology compared to Baptist theology are the sacraments (especially paedobaptism) and the covenants. The reformers were entirely united on the former and, as far as I know, on the latter as well.
So, if you're asking for a source from the 16th century that says "Baptists aren't Reformed," that would be egregiously anachronistic, as the Anabaptists never claimed to be Reformed or Calvinist, and the Particular Baptists of the British Isles were not extant.
Also, a simple comparison between the Reformed confessions (e.g., Heidelberg) and the 1689 would easily dissuade a silly notion of them being in line on some of the most essential points. But, again, I guess that would be "original research." Jarebare555 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarebare555, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources if you'd like more information on what counts as reliable sources in Wikipedia. Essentially, what we look for is reliable secondary sources. Ltwin (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could cite all kinds of primary sources to make a case We don't want primary sources for exactly the reason you noted: you won't find Calvin defining "reformed" in the way you're asking. To arrive at that conclusion from a primary source would be synthesis of a conclusion, which is what original research is. If I wasn't clear, you need secondary sources; but they need to be sources that meet the standards of reliable sources (which, as noted, blogs as self-published sources, are not). Additionally, you probably have the added hurdle here that you may need to attribute statements to the specific source, since there exists more than one singular position (i.e. you're going to get a different position from Clark than say, Collin Hansen). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. You said "You need a secondary source (and probably more that alone...)." I took this to mean at least secondary sources, i.e., secondary and primary sources. It now occurs to me that "that alone" was probably meant to be "than one" instead of "than that alone." I thought you were being self-contradictory, but it was just me misreading a typo. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Jarebare555 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
