Template talk:Calvinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism portal Calvinism falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
Template	This article has been rated as Template-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Archive 1

[edit] Another option?

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Removal of some comments

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)

[edit] Huldrych Zwingli as Background

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)

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)

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)