Talk:Calvinism/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Perseverance

"Perseverance of the Saints: the saved, or Saints, cannot fall away; once saved, always saved."

This seems to be different usage than in Wikipedia entry Saint (or is it?). Can we clarify this on Calvinism and Saint entries please? Thanks.

I believe that most Protestants use the words Saint and Christian almost interchangably, and adjusted the beginning of the Saint entry to say as much. I'll leave it to a Calvinist to clarify the term as they use it though; it might have a more specific connotation in the phrase "Perseverance of the saints", I don't know. --Wesley

Thanks. We will stay tuned. :-)


Yes, Saint and Christian are also the same in Calvinist theology. In fact, Calvin didn't invent Calvinism. Its just that he was in the right place at the right time during the Protestant Reformation. Calvinism is essentially Reformed Theology - which is the same theology or progression of Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. -ds

Penitence

Could a calvinist or someone who knows from whence they speak clarify what exactly their stance on repentence is? I mean, if one of the Elect sin, can they make up for it? Is one sin all that is needed to prove someone isn't Elect?

I don't think that calvinists teach anything about repentance that would surprise another Christian. The scriptures teach the necessity of repentance, the falsehood of anyone's claim to be without sin, the need to confess sin, the faithfulness and justice of God to cleanse from all unrighteousness those who confess their sin and trust in the forgiveness that is in Christ. The only thing that might be distinctive about calvinism, is the particular emphasis on repentance as a gift of God: it is a great gift to be allowed to have a true understanding of the greatness of one's own sin and to be enabled to hate it and turn away from it in love for God. As for "electness": it's important to make a difference between "elect" as "elite", as opposed to "elect" as "loved". Those to whom God has been merciful to grant repentance, whom he has loved, are all sinners. If anyone is jealous of the "loved", they only need to ask for the gift of repentance for themselves, and that is the love of God to them, beginning to be revealed in them. I think that's a fair representation of what a calvinist would say. Mkmcconn
Indeed it is. I subscribe to what would be considered Calvinist doctrine (although I prefer the name 'Reformed', as I follow Christ, not Calvin). I have made an edit removing the phrase 'Once saved, always saved' from the list of hyper-Calvinist doctrine as it is actually mainstream Reformed - here's why. The position is that the saved (elect) can and will sin, but that God's forgiveness is sufficient to cover that sin. In effect, the P simply states that the elect and only the elect will continue in faith up until the end of their lives. Thus, while someone who is patently not concerned at all about living a holy life does not appear to be saved, he who is, does.
The key thing is to understand that the doctrine of perseverance (and I prefer 'Preservation', as God is the one who is responsible, not the individual believer) is meant to be a reassurance, not some kind of 'haha! gotcha!' test. Wooster 10:39 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Hi Wooster. In support of your point, The Westminster Confession of Faith 17:3 says with regard to those perseverance: "Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves." Mkmcconn \
However, this does not support "once saved always saved", because the knowledge of salvation is not presumption but a life of faith, which infallibly produces repentance. Thus, WCF 18:1 "Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish): yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed." Belief which is not directed toward walking in all good conscience before God is not faith, but presumption. Mkmcconn 12:04 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Exactly. Doctrinally (and in this context, we are I think writing doctrinally), the statement is that exactly the elect will be preserved - practically, the only way of telling whether one is elect, is to live a life of faith, in good conscience, before God. I think we're talking different terms here, as I do not disagree with you - which point leads me to ask on which side you stand? - but am of the opinion that 'once saved always saved' is an entirely correct means of expressing the doctrine of 'Preservation of the Saints'. If others misunderstand what being 'a Saint' means, that too needs to be dealt with, but not in an encyclopedia? Wooster 17:54 30 May 2003 (UTC)
I would not use the slogan "once saved always saved" because of its notorious misuse. It confuses perseverance with assurance; and by doing that, it turns assurance of salvation into presumption: "I am assured of salvation because I continue to believe that I am saved". That's why the slogan is commonly used to say what the bullet-point expresses: that "once I have asked Jesus into my heart" (this may even be represented as the entire content of repentance), because I have made this decision, I can be assured that I have am "saved". This is quite different from calvinism, which says that assurance comes through continuation in reliance upon the promises of God which concern Christ, and upon the means of grace appointed by Him: in the grateful life which follows from this there is assurance of forgiveness and the help of God. Just as assurance can be gained this way, it can also be lost by neglect: so that those who sin should not be told "once saved always saved", rather they should be told "repent". God will not fail to grant repentance to those whom he has loved, to those who by grace ask for a change of heart and a renewed life: that is "perseverance (or preservation, if you prefer) of the saints". Do you object to the bullet point as it stands now? How would you want it to read? Mkmcconn 23:08 30 May 2003 (UTC)
I've just never come across an evidence of misuse - maybe I'm coming at this from a background where we don't misuse the phrase. Thus, I don't feel that labelling the phrase variously as unhelpful or hyper-Calvinistic is accurate. To put myself in context, I come from a British church background, Congregational and Independent and fundamentally Reformed (although membership is broader than that), so maybe it's just my limited experience. Nevertheless, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080246064X/qid=1054416131/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-6199778-0778232?v=glance&s=books and RT Kendall is a well-respected writer. Wooster
Further links.
* http://www.geocities.com/1christlover/OSAS-.html understands the meaning, yet disagrees.
* http://www.thebereancall.org/articles/newpage31.htm understands the meaning, and would appear to agree, with similar reservations to your own - and mine, although the specific reservations hav never arisen in my (few) conversations on the topic.
* http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/cat1c.htm I suspect misunderstands the whole issue, and at any rate seems to be doing little to foster good relations between evangelicals of all shades and hues.
* http://www.behindthebadge.net/osas/ seems to understand entirely the important logical progression - and then disagrees, which is odd.
* http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/xian/basics/grace.html understands and agrees.

Interestingly, my Google document search on OSAS turned up tons of pages against the use of the phrase, but only this one that I could see in favour - even on UK sites, which may just enforce my impression of a limited experience. Wooster

May I be so bold as to ask whether you agree with the doctrine of eternal security? This does make a difference as to how I try to convince you, without shooting off the edge of the page with all these '::'s  :) Wooster
Anyway. I know that pastorally, we would deal with those whose lives do not show the signs of faith they once did in exactly the way you described - indeed, I would argue that if they are not saved, they never truly were - but I don't feel that Wikipedia is here to provide pastoral help to those in such situations. It's here to delineate certain (in this case theological) boundaries between concepts, ideas and facts. And thus, the only part I object to is the labelling of the phrase 'once saved, always saved' as hyper-Calvinist - you'd have to label a vast swathe of British Christians whose theology is Reformed as being hyper-Calvinist, something neither true nor diplomatic :) Basically, what I'm trying to say is that, regardless of notorious misuse, it is a phrase which any Reformed theologian would be happy to use, provided the meaning of 'saved' is sufficiently well understood. Can you see where I'm coming from on this? Wooster 22:03 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Taking the discussion to your talk. In the meantime, I'll remove the phrase from the bullet-point. Mkmcconn

POV

"Calvinism has frequently appeared in variously corrupted forms," -- Is this POV ? -- Jesus Blows Goats 06:45, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If Calvinism has the ability to define itself, then it is NPOV to call the departures from it, corrupted, which nevertheless call themselves "calvinism". One must wonder whether it expresses a sincere concern, when the user who asks about it calls himself "Jesus Blows Goats".Mkmcconn 20:12, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I picked that name in imitation of the existing name "Jesus_Saves!", which looked to be a longstanding name (so I figured that creative names were good) -- of course, I picked a version much more to my liking :) -- but I was since informed that mine was inflammatory, and I have changed it. I guess "Jesus Saves!" is a less inflammatory name, as it is pro rather than con. But it can mislead newbies, as it mislead me, into thinking that creative & entertaining names are ok. Sorry about that. Pagan 05:56, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Once saved, always saved

Does this article mention the charge I've seen used in debates that the TULIP doctrine justifies child abusers who continue in child abuse, as long as they have made the confession at once point in their life? (Should it, or is that scandalous more than doctrinal?) Jesus Blows Goats 06:45, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The aberration you are talking about, is sometimes called "Once saved always saved", and is contrasted with the confessional Calvinists' belief that the elect are those who endure in faith, and progress in sanctification to the end. "that those who once professed belief are saved, regardless of what they later do", expresses that perversion. Mkmcconn 20:12, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

Spam: Calvinist Churches, USA

An anon at 69.134.80.96 has repeatedly added a particular denomination to the external links. I have argued (in my edit/revert comments) that this belongs in Reformed churches, not here since 1. this page is concerned with the doctrinal content of the Calvinist system, and 2. we would invite a very long list of other denominations' web pages if this one is permitted. I plan to submit this case to the authorities if we cannot resolve it here. --Flex 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a Calvinist and hold to the belief system very strongly - but the link that has been repeatedly given is inappropriate for 2 reasons:
  1. Despite the title, which appears to be inclusive, the website is aimed solely at Reformed Baptists and excludes the majority of Calvinists who are paedobaptists. Calvinism does not restrict its influence to Baptist churches solely.
  2. I initially thought that the website was for a broad association, but is actually a base for independent Calvinist churches - which again is more exclusive than what Calvinism is. I will revert the page. Could the contributor PLEASE read this information and respond? If you continue to add this unimportant link you may end up being banned for a short time from editing Wikipedia articles. Flex and I do not have the power to do this, but if you repeatedly make the edits you are making WITHOUT discussion then Flex and I will be compelled to complain to administrators, and it will be up to them to decide. --One Salient Oversight 02:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The idea here is that people with different beliefs struggle to find a fair and accurate text. On the Calvinism page, the listing of a particular denomination is not appropriate. I will defend the actions of One Salient Oversight and Flex.--Cberlet 03:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hyper-Calvinism

It seems to me that hyper-Calvinism still exists today...it's all over the WWW, and in many congregations (and, I think, in more conservative Reformed/Calvinist denominations such as the PCA, to some degree). Could someone who knows a bit more about it perhaps mention something about that under the "Hyper-Calvinism" section (and also on the page Hyper-Calvinism? Flex? Jim Ellis? Thanks. KHM03 13:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right that some forms of "hyper" Calvinism still exist today. I am aware of the Gospel Standard Baptists (which would probably fit the technical definition). I'm also aware of the Protestant Reformed Church which has been labeled hyper-Calvinist because they deny God's common grace and have theological issues with some contemporary evangelism styles. However, I have had association with PCA churches and have not found evidence of the extreme views which might be considered "hyper" in the technical sense or the general sense. Jim Ellis 17:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the PCA is hyper-Calvinist...apologies. I have, however, known a few members of PCA congregations who were, in fact, hyper-Calvinist. I've actually known a few Reformed Baptists who also would fit the label (though all would argue that they were faithfully Calvinist, and others were less than faithful). The truth is that there are many United Methodists who are only nominally Wesleyan or Arminian; there are also Presbyterians who aren't Calvinist in the most faithful sense of the term. KHM03 17:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I myself work in a PCA church and dare say that many of our members are not Calvinist in the most faithful sense of the term. In fact, most attend this church because of its faithfulness to the infallibility of Scripture - all of it. Many of them have a difficult time with some tenets of Calvinism (like most of us) but prefer to struggle with the tensions given to us in Scripture rather than attend other churches who call themselves faithful to God's word yet rarely consider difficult texts or rise above a 3rd grade level in dealing with any text. -ds

Popularity of Amyrauldianism?

The article states, "In the United States, Amyrauldianism is the most common form of Calvinism current among evangelical churches." Where does that information come from? There is a vibrant Calvinist community who hold to all five points in the PCA, OPC, Reformed Baptists, and many other Reformed churches. Additionally, Westminster Theological Seminary (and Westminster Seminary in California), Reformed Theological Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary, and many others teach what can only be regarded as five point Calvinism and require adherence among their professors to the Westminster Confession of Faith. There are many internationally recognized five pointers including J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, John Piper, John Frame, etc. Perhaps they refer to the mainline and more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA)? They have the numerical majority, certainly, but that statement makes it sound like five pointers are all but extinct. Any input? --Flex 11:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know of several non-denominational Bible Churches that are 4-point. I think dispensationalists tend to be 4 pointers (at best). But I too question the validity of the statement you quote. Maybe it has to do with how the term "evangelical churches" is understood by the writer. However, I consider the denominations you mention (except for the liberal Presbyterian Church - USA) as evangelical. In the absence of source info, I favor a modification to the statement in question. Regards, Jim Ellis 12:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I made a change to that effect. --Flex 13:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TULIP

Since each point of TULIP has its own article, we should pare down the text here (e.g., drop the scripture references). This article is a bit long already. Objections? --Flex 13:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with eliminating the Scripture references, but leave the brief definitions. Jim Ellis 14:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Strongly agree, Flex. We should intentionally undo the tendency that proliferates in these articles, to reproduce the content of entire essays, with each mention of the issues. At best, we end up with numerous articles with identical content. At worst, we have several articles with conflicting content. I also agree with Jim Ellis, that one way to avoid this is to limit the descriptions in various ways. Another way would be to preface the section as containing material quoted from a reputable source, to which it would be less likely that passers-by would be inclined to add their own twist on the sentences. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flurry of edits ended

I am done with a flurry of edits which have left the article reorganized, pared down especially under Hypercalvinism, expanded for clarity under the new section "Other Calvinist movements", and with many, many more minor changes. Please review for damage; but I hope that it is over-all an improvement. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the use of main page redirections. The only major thing I would suggest is deleting the page TULIP (Calvinism) (which I renamed Five points of Calvinism) since each of the points has its own page already and can cover them in more detail. We can cover the history in Quinquarticular Controversy and briefly in Calvinism and the articles on each point. OR we could merge the five articles and Quinquarticular Controversy into Five points of Calvinism. I think I prefer the first approach since it allows individual references to pages rather than to Five points of Calvinism#Limited atonement (or whatever). There's also overlap with Predestination (Calvinism). --Flex 18:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Predestination (Calvinism) began as an essay posted for comment and improvement, when I first started editing here(look back in the history, if you're interested, and give me your comments - I still like the essay, although it is a little controversial). It was thereafter blanked and replaced with a brief (but complete enough) citation. The article should be converted to a redirect, I think. There isn't that much to say about Predestination that isn't said in Predestination, Five points, and Calvinism. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
Five points of Calvinism should be like Five solas. The two articles have a similar design, and editors on either should learn from how the other is developing, and imitate accordingly. Mkmcconn (Talk) \
You're right that the "Main" template should appear under each of the five points, rather than under the main heading for the five points. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For all the Calvinists out there...

Here's something I found for all you Calvinists (and you know who you are)...an upcoming event. Just thought I'd share. Symposium on Calvinism & Worship KHM03 6 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

NEWS ITEM: Pgh Seminary. KHM03 20:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Worm theology

While Reformed theology has sometimes been called “a” worm theology, it is not something uniquely linked with Calvinism as the article implies -- or even typically used of Calvinism. More properly, worm theology is the nickname given to any view of Christian living that is constantly self-deprecating. It has also been used to refer to those who believe that the worse you feel about yourself, the more likely God will respond positively to your request for mercy. I have heard it used to describe the theology of any who oppose the emphasis on “self-esteem” so prevalent today. The old fire and brimestone preaching of the past was sometimes referred to as worm theology.

All that is to say, I don't think this section is particularly accurate in it's use of the term, or particularly helpful to the overall article. If we can't delete it altogether, I would suggest a more concise treatment with the reference to "total depravity" and let it go with that.

As an aside, in addition to Isaac Watts' hymn, there are worm passages in Scripture which gave rise to the name; see Isa. 41:14, Job 25:6, and Psa. 22:6.

Jim Ellis 13:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts, Jim, and I made some changes accordingly. Let me know what you think. --Flex 14:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I for one think you did swell. I've always thought that Calvinism's most important distinctive was never the solas or TULIP, but Calvin's particular take on the sovereignty of God (Methodism's most important distinctive being Wesley's theology of grace, the RCC's being its sacramental theology, etc.). So I think you did right by Calvin there. KHM03 14:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Flex, that looks good to me. I hope Mkmcconn agrees. However, I was surprised to see you say that "advocates" of Calvinism sometimes use the term.  :-) Regards, Jim Ellis 14:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's the Isaac Watts quote (which I deleted), and I've heard some others embrace the term (like "Puritan" or "queer"). --Flex 14:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

No matter. I've just not heard "worm theology" used except as a pejorative. Jim Ellis 14:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that it's always pejorative. The only reason that I made a header out of it, is because I frequently hear critics of the Protestant view of Original sin speaking of that view as "Worm theology" - in other words, a degrading view of people and a denial of their likeness to God (a little lower than the angels). Mkmcconn (Talk) \
Some Calvinists are convinced that the Fall corrupts man's being, as such, so that sin actually adheres to the cells of his body and is passed on as a physical contagion to his posterity. They have support of this from the language used by the Westminster confession, for example, which speaks of original sin, together with the guilt of it, being passed on "by ordinary generation". This view is very near to literal "worm theology", because it implies strongly that Man is no longer human. He is a corrupted entity, not merely a corrupted moral actor. He suffers justly on account of Adam's transgression, not because he is guilty together with Adam, but because he is inherently despicable to God, no longer his good creation, not even a ruined apple, but an infestation. Personally, I find no difference between this and gnosticism. It is not, or it should not be, Calvinism. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
See this sermon from a PCA pastor, and here's one from an Adventist. John F. MacArthur coopts the term here: "I've often wondered who will be the greatest in heaven. The only possible answer is the one who suffered the most to proclaim the name of Jesus Christ. It certainly won't be anyone who has sought glory by political powerplay or audacious ambition. It is prepared for those who have been smitten with 'worm theology,' and lived it out." John Piper says, "God's way of freeing and mobilizing people who see themselves as worms is not to tell them that they are beautiful butterflies but rather to say, 'I will help you. I am your redeemer... Go to Egypt now, and I will be with you.'" I've heard others, too. That's just a quick web search, but it should be sufficient to prove that, like "puritan" and "queer," the term/concept can be coopted from critics as a badge of honor and is not "always" pejorative. --Flex 18:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well-cited, Flex. I am corrected. (And, it is this kind of co-opting that I intended in my over-written version, under that header.) Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sovereign grace

Each time I go through the "Sovereign grace" section I try to remove the jargon, to put the descriptions in simpler (but still accurate) English. That approach is reversed in each of the following edits. Let's talk about that, then. I think that this ought to be as plainly, briefly, and pointedly stated as possible, avoiding any Calvinish buzzwords, in terms of practical meaning, rather than abstract concepts. That's what I'm aiming for. Is there disagreement? Why can't I get that approach to stick? Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

My primary intent there is to present the "warm" side of Calvinism -- the side that avoids the technicalities of election and reprobation and focuses on the wonder of the sovereignty of God. That is a side that is often seen in preaching but not so much in theology text books, and it brings joy, gratitude, and love to the hearts of the recipients in a way that, say, details about the ordo salutis just can't. Admittedly, there is some jargon in my most recent version (e.g., "saving faith", "bring glory to his own name"), and it could do with some revision. What buzzwords are you thinking of in particular? --Flex 13:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
("...warm side of Calvinism"? That's generally referred to as "Arminianism"!) KHM03 13:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
(You must have overlooked that I also described it as "wonderful." :-P ) --Flex 14:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

When you over-wrote this, was it because it was on the "cold" side ?

Calvinism teaches that because it is God's sovereign choice, whether someone will be saved, and because the Scriptures teach that it is according to his revealed will to pray for one's own and God's enemies, a Christian should intercede for others with God, and pray that he would be merciful to persecuters, to grant them repentance, faith, and salvation.'

Or, prior to that, what about this?

So that, the difference between one sinful person and another is the mercy of God, and not that the other "worm" is more sinful than "I".'

Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I liked the sentiment of the first, but it didn't seem to me to flow with the section. I'm sure we can work the content back in if you think it belongs. The second is represented in the current text in essence, but as I deleted the prior reference to worms, I figured I might as well rework the latter. It also seemed too personal and not NPOVish with the "I". --Flex 17:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wow!

I am very impressed with the content of this article. The contributors are to be congratulated. So I've nominated it as a featured article. PedanticallySpeaking 13:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I like it too, and (as one of the contributors), thank you. Some of the things most interesting to inlookers are not emphasized here, though. I'm sure that your nomination will attract some help in rounding out the article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Everybody wants theocracy

We're going to have to spend some time talking about Geneva, the political side of Dort, the Puritans (especially Cromwell), Massachusetts Bay, and the South Africans. I think it can be done without too much distraction. Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And Michael Servetus.  :) KHM03 10:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Complicated, but perhaps linked to the pages on Theocracy and Dominionism. The early stuff could start here, but eventually it really should have its own page: Early Calvinism and Theocracy. There is a long-running debate on whether or not to call some of the early Calvinist experiments "theocracy." I say yes, but have read many scholars who say no. But worth starting a block of text here.--Cberlet 15:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
That was Calvin's intent, was it not? KHM03 20:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Free will?

"Thus, even saving faith is God's gift and is not of the will of man"

Please correct me if I am wrong, but my (somewhat limited) understanding of the Calvinist view is not that saving faith is not of the will of man, but that it is not due to the will of man. In other words, man wills it, once God grants it. Am I incorrect?

No. You are correct. I changed it. Is it better? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 : Yes, I think so.

I'm not sure you have given the summary sufficiently. I would formulate it that God wills faith in us and out of that willing we willingly believe. God's will is prior to and the cause of our willing, but does not substitute for our will. -- User:Urlord 18:10 PST, 12/12/05

Think of this: the will of man leads him away from God. By that logic, the only way a man can come to repentance is by intervention of God, what the Calvinists call "irresistable grace", for that man to recieve the gift of faith. -Guenther Bacon

As a Calvinist with an M.Div from a Westminster Confession Of Faith adhering seminary (Knox Theological Seminary), I would suggest that Luther's "Bondage of the Will" never met its full coherence until Jonathan Edward's "Freedom of the Will". Edwards argued that: 1) The discussion about the will is marred by failure to examine what the will is. 1a) The will is the capacity to choose what we want. 1b) That we can not and will not choose what we do not want, although our options can be limited, 1bi) If you put two apparently equally desirable carrots to either side of a donkey, there must be something to make him want or will one carrot over the other or he will starve. 1bii) My mother threatened me with going to my room if I did not do the dishes. I wanted to do neither, but I wanted to go to my room less than wanting to do the dishes, therefore I wanted to do the dishes. 2) It is in man's nature through creation that he wills (else he would be an automaton) and there would be no variety between men if it were otherwise ...and no responsibility. 3) After the fall, man wanted or willed to rebel from God. It is not that he lacked will, but love for God. 4) In applying "irresistible grace”’ God does not replace the capacity to will in an individual, but replaces "a heart of stone with a heart of flesh". The thing he chooses changes because God changes that which was the damaged in the fall, our love of God. I spell all of this out because those of us of the reformed theology are not suggesting a cold, robotic humanity and because salvation in reformed theology is not distinct from acceptance of salvation and repentance. Acceptance and repentance remain integral, but, by necessity, follow upon God's gracious actions. --24.126.2.207

Summary in intro

I deleted the summary sentence that was recently added to the introduction and that read:

The five main points of Calvinism are: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints.

As is noted in the "Summaries of Calvinism" section, most Calvinists don't consider the five points to be a good summary of their doctrine, let alone the "main points." Rather, the five points merely highlight the differences in understanding between Calvinists on the one hand and Arminians and Wesleyans on the other. If you think my deletion is incorrect, let's discuss it here. --Flex 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. But can't we find a way to call the TULIP points sinful?  ;) KHM03 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It was I, Brusselsshrek, who added the summary sentence, and I don't mind the fact that it was removed if that really does not summarise Calvinism. What I would like though is that rather than just removing it and leaving a void, you or someone else who feels they have a good grip on the subject actually write a very short one or two sentence summary of what actually is Calvinism. This was why I tried to do it myself - I came to the article and that's what I wanted, a one or two sentence summary to understand it before returning to the article from whence I'd come. Instead, because there was no summary, I was forced to trawl through the whole article and try and make that summary myself. In summary: someone write a concise summary in the first paragraph please. Brusselsshrek 12:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Doctrine (opposing)

I deleted the "Doctrine (opposing)" section from the "See also" section because it is vague and incomplete. Arminianism and Reformed Arminianism share much in common with Calvinism that they do not share with, say, Roman Catholicism (or Hinduism for that matter). Soteriology is only one part of the Calvinist system (albeit a very important part). It is unhelpful, IMHO, to list "opposing" systems without mentioning at what points they differ. If such points do merit inclusion, it would probably be better describe them in a paragraph that can explain them more fully than to list them. --Flex 12:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been debating Calvanism with a friend of mine and I have been unable to find any scripture where Jesus speaks about predestination. There are a few fleeting references to the "elect" at the end of times and I've also noticed that no scripture is cited in this article. It may be worth mentioning in the beginning of this article that the tenents of Calvanism relating to predestined and salvation were never preached by Jesus but rather that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. HarwoodRH 23:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

Really not appropriate to mention a church with 20 members (mostly from one family) in a general article on Calvinism.--Cberlet 14:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree.  KHM03 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree also. Jim Ellis 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I also agree Meng.benjamin 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't it have 100+ members? It's certainly notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, in any case.--86.20.61.98 20:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
They have no influence on other Calvinists and will be remembered as a bunch of sideshow freaks.  A.J.A. 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they are five-point Calvinists. All of them. Mentioning them in the article is a good notion, considering the fact that they are Biblically sound. Bacon
They have more than 100 members, most (but not all) of Phelps' lineage.  They most certainly fall under the Hyper-Calvinist classification. --71.229.144.249
Since they are a very small fringe group, I don't think they should be mentioned here as per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight ("Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.... [V]iews that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."). I would support a brief mention in the article on Hyper-Calvinism, however, since examples of Hyper-Calvinists aren't easy to come by. --Flex 13:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The specific article on Hyper-Calvinism does not even mention them, so why should they be mentioned in the more general article on Calvinism? In the context of this article, they are not notable enough to be mentioned. RelHistBuff 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
So, we go by physical size of the movement (in this case, number of warm bodies involved), rather than the influence the group might have on say, current events? Seems rather myopic... --164.159.172.2
Yes. The Wikipedia is not a newspaper (cf. #7 under this official policy). If WBC proves to be of historical significance despite their tiny size, they may later warrant a mention here. --Flex 10:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

"Though these are often over-emphasized by its detractors, Calvinism is perhaps best known for its doctrines of predestination and election."

For many people, (amongst laymen and scholarly treatment alike) calvinism does indeed refer specifically to a certain view of predestination and soveriengty. This is true. Those who would emphasize this are to be found both amongst adherents to this view of predestination and it's detracters. To say that it's just the detracters who do this is pov.

Rob Rohrs April 27, 2006

Merge with Monergism

That article is POV and largely redundant and could easily be redacted to fit under Calvinism#Sovereign grace. Objections? --Flex 14:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My POV
I have been to several Bible schools and the concept of calvanism still baffles me. Why? I have been reading on the subject in the articles found on James White's website.
Please correct me if I am wrong but basically what I understand is the following. God decided before time even began who he wanted to spend eternity with and made his own little list of humans to show mercy to and not send to hell. If you are not on his little grace list, to bad and so sad. God set up man for a fall so he could swoop in with the plan of redemption and extend grace to those people on his little list. People who respond do so because God wanted them to respond. People who reject the Gospel do so because God has decided to not extend grace to them. This theology seems screwed up to me and unfair. I could be mistaken but I think Dr. Norman Geisler has come out against James White's teachings on the subject but I could be wrong. It makes God sound pretty rotten to me. Any clarification on the matter would be helpful. I do believe God wanted the fall of mankind to take place and set it up as a part of the cosmic war between Heaven and Lucifer. --70.129.103.159

You can read the article on Calvinism, but this is not a discussion board for judging its validity or answering such questions. For that, you might consult the links at the bottom of the article or try the discussion forums at one of the listed websites. --Flex 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Monergism is NOT a doctrine which is limited to Calvinism only. Monergism is the cornerstone of Islam just as well, where the predestination and fatalism - kismet form the basis of the faith. Hence I strongly object merging Monergism with Calvinism, as Monergism is not a Calvinism-inclusive doctrine, but is present also in other religions than Christianity. --194.89.192.24

Fair enough. The article as it stood had no reference to other religions. If we can add that, I would withdraw the merge request. --Flex 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam is not Monergistic in the Christian theological sense. The definitions of these words vary depending on the theology purporting them. In Christian "monergism" God graciously saves people who are unable to save themselves.

Founder of Calvinism

I was under the impression that the historical founder of Calvinism was Zwingli, not Calvin. Any comments? I will try to get the sources. --146.245.188.162

The opening paragraphs make clear that Calvin was not the sole articulator of the system, but his Institutes is a quintessential expression of it in a way that is different from the writings of Zwingli, etc. There is a good bit of current research about Peter Martyr Vermigli's significant and overlooked role in the development of Reformed doctrine, but nonetheless, the system bears Calvin's name because he is its most famous systematic expositor. --Flex 13:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Removal of Sydney Anglicans from "Peoples" Section

I removed this link from the Sydney Anglicans for the obvious reason that if every church or diocese (that followed some of Calvin's teachings) placed their link in this section, it would swamp the page. An encyclopedia article should not be used for self promotion. If I am incorrect in this assumption, please post here so people can discuss the merits of promoting specific churches, or organisations.

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)

discredited

although I am not a Calvinist and find some of the ideas rather disturning there are many who would strongly suport this theology. I have removed the comment 'widely discredited' as it is not supported with references, but open to discussion Johnmarkh 19:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Absurd. A flat earth is widely discredited. Calvinism is alive and well. --Flex 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

I think this article lacks information about how many people belong to churches oriented along calvinistic lines and in which countries and percentages. For instance, that it is the most important form of christianism in the Netherlands, USA, Scotland and Switzerland. 213.13.91.127 00:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Marx on Calvinism

Why no mention of Marx' writings that Calvinism grew out of capitalism, rather than the other way around as Weber said? The Calvinists preach that people who are wealthy are that way because God wants them to be, and poor people are because they are not part of "the elect." Comments?

If Marx said that, feel free to add it to the appropriate section (with citations preferably, since it's not as well known as Weber's claims). As far as your statement that 'Calvinists preach that people who are wealthy are that way because God wants them to be, and poor people are because they are not part of "the elect,"' you'll certainly need a reliable source to demonstrate that that is a general truth (and I daresay you will have trouble finding one). --Flex 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)