Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateCalvinism 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.
On this day... Article milestones
July 23, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2005Good article nomineeListed
August 8, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 23, 2004, September 13, 2011, September 13, 2014, September 13, 2015, September 13, 2016, and September 13, 2017.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Merge Reformed churches here[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
not merge--JFH (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't quite understand the purpose of Reformed churches. It seems that this article may have been started to be about the continental Reformed (continental reformed churches redirects there) as opposed to Presbyterians, but that's not what it is now, and IMHO the way the article is specified is identical to Calvinism. JFHutson (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep Reformed churches as a general article about churches in the continental reformed tradition. There are subtle but important differences with Presbyterian churches. StAnselm (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep I agree. There are many things about the Reformed church that are not necessarily identical with Calvinism proper. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, it makes sense to me to have a separate article on the continental Reformed, I just didn't see Reformed churches as currently serving that purpose. I've made changes to it to make it more clear that that's what it is and hopefully folks will add material to make the distinction clear. JFHutson (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't think theyre useful enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 5 December 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

– This religious tradition is usually called the "Reformed tradition", "Reformed faith", or "Reformed Protestantism" in reliable sources. Most sources on the tradition and its theology use the term Reformed tradition or Reformed theology in their titles. Here is a short list of overviews.

  • Allen, R. Michael (2010). Reformed Theology. Doing Theology. New York: T&T Clark.
  • Alston, Wallace M. Jr.; Welker, Michael, eds. (2003). Reformed Theology: Identity and Ecumenicity. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
  • Leith, John H. (1980). An Introduction to the Reformed Tradition. Louisville, KY,: Westminster John Knox.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  • McKim, Donald K. (2001). Introducing the Reformed Faith. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
  • Sproul, R. C. (2005). What is Reformed Theology?. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

All but one of these are directed to non-specialist audiences. This demonstrates that "Reformed" is recognizable to nonspecialists and satisfies WP:NC on recognizability.

I realize that most of these use "Reformed theology". I don't think that this is the appropriate term for the article because it is about the entire religious tradition. "Reformed tradition" includes the theology as well as practices and history.

A search of Google books for "Reformed tradition", "Reformed dogmatics", "Reformed worship", "Reformed theology", "Reformed confessions", etc. will show many more reliable sources than the equivalents with "Calvinist". reformed tradition returns more results than calvinism, and many of the results for "calvinism" do not appear to be reliable sources on the subject of the page.

Books on "Calvinism" are usually about predestination, which is not the subject of this page. This is a WP:PRECISION issue. Calvinism is often used to mean something more specific than the wider Reformed tradition.

Admittedly, the three most reliable books on the history of the tradition have included the word "Calvinism" in their titles (though Benedict's Christ Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism at least used "Reformed" in the main title). The two most recent of these books have statements from their authors indicating that Reformed is the preferred term, but they used "Calvinism" in their titles for identifiability to a wider audience. They then proceed to use "Reformed" throughout the book. Despite these statements, I believe, based on the above book titles and many other nonspecialist sources, that "Reformed tradition" satisfies WP:NC, which states that the title only needs to be recognizable to someone familiar with the subject. One does not need to be an expert on this subject to know what Reformed means, even if Calvinism is more a familiar word in a wide context.

Quotes from authors of histories with "Calvinism" in the name

Reformed is thus for several reasons a more historically accurate and less potentially misleading label than Calvinist to apply to these churches and to the larger tradition to which they attached themselves. Up until this moment, I have used Calvinist and Reformed synonymously to make myself clear to nonspecialist readers who are more likely to recognize the latter term. Henceforth Reformed will be this book's label of choice whenever reference is being made to the broader tradition that it examines and to any of the churches associated with that tradition.

— Benedict, Philip (2002). Christ's Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. xxiii.

Reformed Christianity existed before Calvin became a Protestant, and so calling the churches to which he belonged Calvinist is anachronistic. Before Geneva became a home for Protestantism, several cities in the Swiss Confederacy, Zurich chief among them, had initiated reform. At the same time, Geneva was a late addition to the Swiss Confederacy and always dependent on stronger Swiss cities. This meant that in addition to the struggles Calvin faced in his adopted city, he also encountered resistance and sporadic opposition from the other Reformed churches in Switzerland. His difficult dealings with the other pastors make all the more ironic the later identification of Reformed Protestantism with Calvinism.

— Hart, D.G. (2013). Calvinism: A History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. p. 59.

I mean I would have preferred to use the words Reformed Protestantism as the title, but of course no one would know what that is, so the readers out there who associate, who know Calvinism because of the Puritans and Puritan studies or Max Weber or because of Kuyper's claims about Calvinism, that's an easier title identity for the book and its history, but it does set up a problem of expectations that won't be met.

— Hart, D.G. (2013). "Interview on Calvinism: A History" (Interview). Interviewed by R. Scott Clark. Westminster Seminary California. {{cite interview}}: Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help)

The third history, The History and Character of Calvinism written by John T. McNeill in 1954, uses Calvinist to distinguish from Zwinglianism, and Reformed to encompass both. That doesn't jive with the other (more recent and reliable) sources because they include Zwinglianism in their histories of "Calvinism" (which they would prefer to call the Reformed tradition).

Here are some more quotes from reliable sources on the subject.

Quotes from reliable sources on why "Calvinism" is bad

The term "Calvinism," like the acrostic TULIP, has been, in short, a cause of a series of problems concerning the identity of the Reformed tradition and of Calvin’s relationship to the tradition. Both identifiers are anachronistic and reductionistic. Each of the several meanings of “Calvinism” results in mistaken understandings of the thought of John Calvin and its relation to the Reformed tradition of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Use of the acrostic TULIP has resulted in a narrow, if not erroneous, reading of the Canons of Dort that has led to confused understandings of the Reformed tradition and of Calvin’s theology.


By way of conclusion, we return to the initial question, "Was Calvin a Calvinist?" The answer is certainly a negative. Calvin was not a "Calvinist" — but then again, neither were the "Calvinists." They were all contributors to the Reformed tradition.

— Muller, Richard A. (2009). "Was Calvin a Calvinist?" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

First, the term "Calvinist" ought to be dropped entirely. A name which attaches certain beliefs or practices to a particular figurehead (in this case, John Calvin) requires strong footing lest it seem historically and logically idiosyncratic. Thus, such a term should be employed for those who (1) found a movement or initiate some belief or institute some practice, or (2) definitively shape the development of some movement, belief, or practice....Thus, as Calvin is neither the founder of these doctrines or these churches nor one who definitively shapes them, "Calvinism" is less than accurate.

— Allen, R. Michael (2010). Reformed Theology. Doing Theology. New York: T&T Clark. pp. 3–4.

John Calvin's reputation has so mushroomed in the centuries after his death that it is easy to equate with his name the whole of Reformed Protestant theology and practice, and then rather crudely award it the label which started life as a term of Catholic or Lutheran abuse: 'Calvinist'. Calvin himself, a reticent and private man despite his steely abilities in politics, would not have approved this. He was in any case a second-generation Reformer, and even as the reputation of his work in Geneva grew, there were plenty of currents within the Reformed Protestant world that did not automatically look to him for leadership.

— MacCulloch, Diarmaid (2005). The Reformation: A History. New York: Penguin. p. 253.

To summarize:

  1. "Calvinism" is problematic for WP:PRECISION reasons.
  2. "Calvinism" is inaccurate because the Reformed tradition does not look to Calvin as a founder.
  3. "Reformed" is recognizable to those familiar with the subject, but not necessarily expert.
  4. "Reformed" is a common descriptor in reliable sources, including nonspecialist ones.
  5. "Reformed tradition" designates the entire religious tradition, including its theology, worship, and history.

I am not including Portal:Calvinism or WP:WikiProject Calvinism at this point because I do not want technical issues of moving these to hold up the article space move. JFH (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Strong oppose This is not the Christian Wikipedia. there are other reformed traditions in the world outside of Protestantism. You will need to add disambiguators to avoid WP:BIAS favouring Christianity over all other religions. -- (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the primary meaning of "Reformed tradition" in reliable sources is Calvinism, that's all that matters. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Reformed Christianity per nom &'s reasonable point. Admittedly this might require a hatnote change since plenty of non-reformed Christian denominations are still "reformed" in the sense of being descendants of the Protestant Reformation, but oh well. SnowFire (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: This is a well-thought out proposal, but it is precisely on the evidence provided that I oppose it. While the theology is perhaps more often called "Reformed theology", this article is indeed about a wider tradition which is called "Calvinism" more than "the Reformed tradition". I'm not convinced that there is a problem with the current title. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you elucidate what you mean by a wider tradition called Calvinism and point me to a reliable source?--JFH (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I was simply intending to echo your own words about the article being about more than theology, but "about the entire religious tradition". StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see I misunderstood. I think it's actually much more common for Calvinism to refer to theology (but usually particular views on predestination) than anything else. You'll find lots of books on Reformed worship, Reformed spirituality, and Reformed churches, but few on the Calvinist equivalents. One of the books listed above is about the "Reformed faith" and another about the "Reformed tradition".--JFH (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Not having an article titled "Calvinism" is ridiculous. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Calvinism is certainly the common name in everyday usage as opposed to specialist usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Moved the following from the lede: "A basic principle is that they deny the Catholic teaching that humans can achieve salvation through their actions." (1) I don't think this is "Catholic teaching"; (2) I could not find where the source cited claimed it was; ...if anything, it sounds a little Pelagian. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming Calvinism => Reformed tradition[edit]

Can someone remind me what was the basis for not renaming this article to "Reformed tradition", or not having 2 separate articles "Calvinism" and "Reformed tradition"? I'm sure this had to be discussed before.Ernio48 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes - there was an unsuccessful move request just a few threads up on this page. StAnselm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came under impression that Reformed is more familiar for the English-speaking world than Calvinist is. No idea, though...Ernio48 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I have never heard of Calvinism referred to as anything other than Calvinism. It seems to me that Calvinism would be the common name. And there is this, for whatever it is worth, Google Trends {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As someone currently writing on the topic in an academic setting, it is disappointing to me to discover that this was initially rejected. "Calvinism" was initially a pejorative (it's somewhere in Muller's PRRD or in the various texts by Willem van Asselt). I don't use Wikipedia all that often, and pretty much never post, but this is something I've told high school students to ignore as a bad label in their somewhat out of date textbooks. For all that the article doesn't appear all bad, I'll be able to add this to the list of things to avoid for a quick summary (and no, I'm not one of those who throws out Wikipedia in toto, but this is a problem). "Reformed" makes more sense historically. --eleuthero (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I too am a wikipedia incompetent teacher. While Calvin is the most influential theologian, there is a tradition which precedes him. It makes much more sense to say "Calvin is part of the second generation of Reformed scholars" than like "Calvin is part of the second wave of Calvinists", especially when you are a trying to make distinctions between different Reformed scholars. There should either be a separate Reformed Theology page or Calvinism should be a subsection of this one, simply because "Reformed" is a bigger tent than "Calvinist" and thus it is useful (especially in history classes) to make distinctions between them.22:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I deal more with 17th century history, not so much with what comes after that. In that time span I think Calvinism is a more common noun for the phenomenon than Reformed tradition. In that time span the nouns would either be Calvinism or the national Reformed Churches, in my view. I just came here earlier today when I looked up 'Calvinism'... warshy (¥¥) 23:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I seem to be a bit late to this discussion, but I wish to throw my hat in with changing "Calvinism" to "Reformed". The former is not an accurate descriptor. It is often used specifically in the context of histories of the wider Protestant Reformation, because saying "Reformed" without more descriptors is confusing, and with, a mouthful. This, I think, is really the only reason "Calvinism" is sometimes a more well-known term. So-called Calvinists usually don't self-identify as such. It's approximately as erroneous (and perhaps offensive) as if the article for "Islam" was actually titled "Mohammedanism". -- LightSpectra (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gender-neutral language[edit]

"Mankind" is widely regarded as non-gender neutral these days. Nearly every major style guide advises using "humanity" or "humankind" instead.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

This was changed by another editor and then by myself, but reverted both times; I suggest adopting contemporary standards.Clean Copytalk 11:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ Bryan A. Garner, in Garner’s Modern American Usage here
  2. ^ American Sociological Association Style Guide, 2007, p. 4
  3. ^ Casey Miller, Kate Swift, The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing pp. 19,27
  4. ^ Rosalie Maggio, How to Say It p. 631
  5. ^ jjoan ttaber, "Singular They," pp. 210-211, in Vocabula Bound: Essays on the English Language from the Vocabula Review, edited by Robert Hartwell Fiske
  6. ^ Purdue OWL guide
  7. ^ National Council of Teachers of English style guide
  8. ^ MIT style guide
  9. ^ University of Chicago Style guide (5.250)
  10. ^ New York Times manual of style and usage, "Man, mankind"
  11. ^ Public Works and Government Services Canada
  12. ^ ABC Style guide
  13. ^ Princeton Style Guide
  14. ^ Michael Swan, Practical English Usage, 3rd ed. p. 198
  15. ^ A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, p. 409
  16. ^ AP, mild recommendation
  17. ^ Guardian, strong recommendation
  18. ^ BBC, strong recommendation
  19. ^ Reuters
  20. ^ MLA, strong recommendation
  21. ^ Cambridge
In theology, it's common practice to use "mankind" (or "humankind") when referring to humans collectively (e.g. "all mankind were created in the image of God"), and to use "humanity" when referring to the quality of being human (e.g. "the humanity of Christ"). This holds especially true when discussing Calvinism (due in part to historical norms). Although words like "mankind" are falling out of use in the mainstream, uses of "mankind" far outnumber uses of "humankind" or "humanity" (to refer to humans collectively) in contemporary literature on Calvinism.[1][2] I think it's good for Wikipedia articles to reflect their sources as accurately as possible, rather than making linguistic innovations. Phrases appearing in this article such as "humanity possesses free will" sound a little strange. OldCause (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ Helm, P. (2008). Calvin: A guide for the perplexed.
  2. ^ Backus, I and Benedict, P. (2011). Calvin and His Influence, 1509–2009.

Five points of Calvinism: Sola fide[edit]

How can sola fide be attributed to Calvinism, and not Lutheranism, when its the basic tenet of Lutheran belief: Our churches by common consent ... teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4. — Article IV, "Of Justification", Augsburg Confession, 1530.

How can sola fide exist in Calvinism, when its God's election before time that determines hell or heaven? Weatherford (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

God's election determines who will be saved, and those who God elects are all saved by 'faith alone' (sola fide). In other words they're saved through faith, not works.OldCause (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Augustinian Calvinism[edit]

I'm not sure whether Augustinian Calvinism should exist at all, but I'm confident it is not a common enough name for Calvinism that it should not be mentioned in the lead to this article. When you look at the two citations, Warfield never uses the term, and Helm is talking about a specific view on divine foreknowledge, not Calvinism as a religious movement (the subject of this page). I think Helm is more referring to the fact that the view he presents is shared by Augustine and Calvin rather than arguing that the term Augustinian Calvinism should be used for the tradition. In fact if you search Paul Helm's blog (I know, not a reliable source, but I don't have his books in front of me) you don't find that term, but you do find Calvinism, so it doesn't seem likely that in the citation provided that Helm says he prefers the term Augustinian Calvinism over Calvinism. I've held off on requesting deletion of Augustinian Calvinism because a Google book search turns up lots of hits. But not nearly enough hits to say this is a common alternative name for Calvinism, especially when we are listing four alternative names already!--Jfhutson (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. If you really believe that the page "Augustinian Calvinism" should not exist at all, then, after that is determined as the consensus course for WP, this link should be definitely deleted. But until that is debated and decided, I believe that a link between the two pages must exist somewhere on this page. Maybe it can be moved out of the lead, but it should not be altogether removed, I believe. As it is, the connection and link has proven useful to me, so far. Thanks again, warshy (¥¥) 19:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at that article some more and I started a move request: Talk:Augustinian Calvinism. But the statement in this article is a separate issue. I've shown that the statement that some people call Calvinism "Augustinian Calvinism" is not supported by the citations, and even if there were people that called it that it isn't a common enough name that it should be mentioned in this article at all. If you would like to put a statement that is supported by the citation somewhere in the article, that's fine, but the statement I've pointed out should be removed regardless. --Jfhutson (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have to read the reference article in order to agree that the alternative name "is not supported by the citations." But in the meantime, until that happens, and until we can see any clear direction in your move request on the other article, my position is still that it could be moved out of the lead, but a link to that article should still exist on this one, as long that article exists. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 17:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"John Calvin, renounced Roman Catholicism"[edit]

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.

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 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that the assertion has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't understand from this article what Calvinism is[edit]

And I have a Ph.D. I ran across a reference to a 19th-century American (John Brown) who was a Calvinist. I came to this article and spent a few minutes trying to understand what that meant and I'm still in the dark about it. Please expand the lede. deisenbe (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. I will add something to the level. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Calvinism[edit]

I removed Joshua Harris from the list of names in this section, as he no longer professes Christian faith. While he's notable enough for his own article, and maybe if the narrative in the New Calvinism article was better fleshed out there would be a place for him, in the context of Calvinism writ large I think it's name-dropping/overlinking to mention him. --Michael Snow (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 6 March 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus current title is the WP:COMMONNAME (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CalvinismReformed Protestantism – More neutral name, 'Calvinism' is a nondescript and inappropriate term. Heanor (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose: it appears to be the main name as per Britannica, Oxford Bibliographies and The Canadian Encyclopedia. Veverve (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Veverve, even your Oxford Bibliographies starts with Calvinism was a term first used by Calvin’s opponents. Calvinism has become a widely used label to describe the ideas adopted by Reformed churches across Europe. Some writers prefer to use the label “Reformed” or “Reformed Protestant” to describe a movement that owed much to the insights of a range of reformers and was certainly not solely reliant on John Calvin’s leadership. --Heanor (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Heanor: it is still used as the title of the entry, which supports the idea it is the main term to describe this doctrine. Veverve (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: I've long held that this article was inappropriately named. It's not necessarily a need for a "more neutral name" as mentioned in the nom, but rather the need for a more accurate description. Even the article itself already addresses this: While the Reformed theological tradition addresses all of the traditional topics of Christian theology, the word Calvinism is sometimes used to refer to particular Calvinist views on soteriology and predestination. While some people use the terms interchangeably, that's really an underrepresentation of what they mean. Using the term Reformed Protestantism more accurately describes the tradition rather than pigeon-holing certain views into something they are not. This could be simply summed up by saying "All Calvinism is Reformed Protestantism, but not all Reformed Protestantism is Calvinism". ButlerBlog (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I fail to see how "Calvinism" is not neutral, but in any case it is far more common: 4.6 million Ghits for "Calvinist" vs. 180,000 for "Reformed protestant". The latter is simply not used much: if the word "Calvinist" is avoided, it is usually replaced with simply "Reformed". StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The reason I think I would oppose the move is because the historical literature about 17th century European history I am familiar with uses the term Calvinism as a generic name to refer to all sorts of different Protestant views, currents, and churches of the period. That is the common name used in the historical literature of the 17th century I am familiar with. And the 17th century is the period of European history for which the name Calvinism is the most relevant, I believe. By the 18th century the name starts to become less and less relevant. I think the term Calvinism becomes almost completely irrelevant by the 19th century? warshy (¥¥) 22:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Google Ngrams are very convincing.[1] Rreagan007 (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Although I very much appreciate the intent of the proposal, I feel that the term "Calvinism" is distinctive in its broader use throughout scholarly discourse. For example, the primary point of Sproul's What Is Reformed Theology: Understanding the Basics (first published in 1997) is to explain, "What do the five points of Calvinism really mean?" Selderhuis (in his biography John Calvin: A Pilgrim's Life) points out that "Calvinist" Christians should really be called "Reformed" Christians, but he continues to use the term "Calvinism" throughout the entire book in light of its obvious weight in both historic and modern times. Just my two cents. VistaSunset (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment In the historic sense, Calvinism and Reformed Christianity are interchangeable. In the modern sense, Calvinism refers just to the soteriological points, and not the whole of it: the sacramental, covenantal, and confessional aspects. For example, Piper and Macarthur would be considered Calvinists but not Reformed since they eschew covenant theology and confessionalism (see their talk pages for these discussions). I'll oppose the move, but would like to see this page updated (with citations) on the modern distinction. —Confession0791 talk 10:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Move to Reformed: Moving this article to Reformed is the best option as several articles on Wikipedia related to the faith simply use the word "Reformed", e.g. Methodist, Episcopal, Reformed, etc. John Calvin is the leading figure of the Reformed tradition but not the only one. Notably even in its early development, significant figures like Huldrych Zwingli, John Knox, and Thomas Cranmer contributed to Reformed theology. Churches of the Reformed/Calvinist tradition never use the word "Calvinist" in their name, but always use the word "Reformed", e.g. Dutch Reformed Church, United Reformed Church, etc. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Calvinism very easily meets WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Only State Church?[edit]

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[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[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[reply]

Francis Turretin?[edit]

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[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[reply]