Christianity: Calvinism Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Calvinism.

If you wish to debate any of the following questions after reading the FAQ, please do it at the appropriate links: What is the scope of the term "Calvinist"? Are Reformed Baptists Calvinist? Are some of the Neo-Orthodox (eg. Karl Barth) Calvinist? The above are Frequently Held Debates (FHDs).

Archives

1

Maybe the best way to cover the Barth debate is to fix up Neo-orthodoxy and use that instead. That way, we could state the opinion of conservative Calvinists in that article (with a link elsewhere), to prevent the problem.

Yes?

-- TimNelson 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to me that Neo-orthodoxy was born in Reformed circles but is now much broader, so I prefer Barth. (However, I'm also open to trying altogether different [wholly other?] approaches to the template as it now stands.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we somehow neutrally list "alternative", "remonstrant", "non-traditional", "non-confessional" interpretations of Calvin - so that Arminianism, Amyrauldianism, and Barth are listed? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A good idea if we can do it neutrally. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some comments, rather than being archived, were moved to the discussion pages listed in the FAQ/FHD messagebox at the top of the page, to be preserved for posterity. -- TimNelson 04:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It just occurred to me while working on the Huldrych Zwingli article, shouldn't he be under the "Background" category rather than the "Influences"? Calvinism could not have influenced Zwingli considering that he died before Calvinism was spread. But through Bullinger and the Zürich Consensus, Zwingli could have been an important "background" to Calvinism. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the problem is just an ambiguous title. The archive discussion indicates that the members of the "Influences" section are persons/entities that influenced the development of Calvinism in its various forms, rather than those who were influenced by Calvinism. "Influencers" is perhaps more accurate if clunkier, but I think we could rely on context since only the "influencers" meaning makes sense, as you noticed. Can you think of a less ambiguous title? Another approach would be to remove him since the connection is not so much greater than other Reformers such as Bullinger or Vermigili. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah "Influences" as a noun. I guess I understood it as a verb as in "Calvinism influences x". Probably another noun that does not get confused as a verb would be better. "Personalities", "Authorities", "Characters", "Leaders"? Another comment: is the Synod of Dort a "Background"? --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose a new section for history mentioning important movements and events that shaped the Reformed Churches such like Reformation in Switzerland, Crypto-Calvinism, Scottish Reformation, Reformation in the Kingdom of Hungary, the Vestments controversy, the History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate, Synod of Dort, Bishops' Wars, Antinomian Controversy, Westminster Assembly, Nonconformist (Protestantism), Helvetic Consensus, Half-Way Covenant, Old Side–New Side controversy, Old School–New School controversy, 1886 Dutch Reformed Church split and so on. Barumbarumba (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]