Talk:Reformed

From Theopedia

By calling Theopedia "Reformed", I definitely mean to include Reformed Baptists under the umbrella. In other words, I'd rather not Theopedia take a decisive stance on paedo-baptism. Grace and peace. -Aaronshaf 20:35, 15 November 2005 (EST)

Reformed theology and Calvinism

Do we want to get rid of a "disambig" page and redirect "reformed theology" to Calvinism? I'm personally up for that, but, I'd like to discuss (I think Wooster said this too) more than just soteriology on the Calvinism page. I'm almost tempted to call out for an article titled "Reformed theology" where Calvinism is discussed rather than Calvinism having it's own page. Thoughts? JordanBarrett (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2006 (EST)

That makes sense to me...My inter-denominational background tells me that born-again Christians of every other stripe would agree with that (including Catholics, believe it or not)... -David 13:46, 15 February 2006 (EST)

Agree in entirety. I have always preferred the name Reformed over Calvinist. Of course, we already have Reformed theology, so it'd just be a case of shifting stuff over to that page and redirecting Calvinism, unless we can think of anything useful and up-building to do with it (like a list of "you know you're a Calvinist if..." jokes). I'm still mulling over that sacramentology sub-page; I'll probably have time for a decent go at writing something this evening, my time, (but don't hold your breath!) Wooster (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2006 (EST)

I hear what you guys are saying but don't act too hastily. Let's kick it around a little more. I'm shooting from the hip here but I think there is ample reason to have a "Calvinism" page simply because of the Calvinist vs. Arminian issues and the name familiarity in theological discussion. I also tend to see "Reformed theology" as broader than the usual perception of Calvinism. Granted Calvin's Institutes is broad enough to be almost synonymous with Reformed theology, but the casual reader (layman) is not likely to understand that. We tend to use Calvinism in a more restricted sense, focusing on the sovereignty of God in salvation (soteriology), for that is where Arminianism (and Romanism for that matter) stand dramatically opposed. Is there not any way to logically maintain a Reformed theology page alongside a Calvinism page? Gomarus 08:04, 16 February 2006 (EST)

What about discussing every issue except soteriology on the Reformed theology article? When we get to the section of salvation, have it say "see main page: calvinism". Perhaps we could then make the Calvinism article be more clear in that it is discussing issues limited to salvation, here's why, etc. JordanBarrett (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2006 (EST)

I think it is feasible for our Calvinism article to be restricted to the "soteriological aspects of Reformed theology" -- the introductory words could be reworked to do so. However, before we do that we may want to think about (and list here) the potential sections that would be addressed under Reformed theology. I am not trying to force something here, just discussing to hopefully get some concensus.  :-) Gomarus 12:17, 16 February 2006 (EST)

I just looked over on Wikipedia and they have "Reformed theology" redirect to "Calvinism." There Calvinism is presented in the broader context similar to what Jordan said in earlier post above. So now I'm having second thoughts. :-( Gomarus 13:02, 16 February 2006 (EST)

I think the main disagreement just serves to illustrate that the words Calvinist and Reformed are not univocal; specifically, that Jordan, Gomarus and I have all demonstrated (at sundry times, and in divers manners) that we use the words differently. *My* main complaint is that there is a distinction being made between being Reformed and being a Calvinist (by keeping two separate articles) while the article proclaims that there is no difference (so why don't we have a redirect?). That's a straight-up contradiction: the problem is that some maintain a distinction of kind; others, a distinction of degree; and yet more, no distinction at all. For myself, I fall into the middle camp. Wooster (talk)

However, I should think we can probably all agree that to at least one of Calvinism and Reformed theology, there is more than just soteriology. Ecclesiology, sacramentology, Pneumatology, hermeneutics and Bibliology and Christology all have Reformed distinctives, off the top of my head; heck, even soteriology has more to it than TULIP. Somewhere (I'm not hugely fussed where), that broader perspective should be given. All we need to do is agree where, and to be honest, that's not such a huge argument to have, is it? Wooster (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2006 (EST)