Talk:Reformed theology

I'm not sure exactly what should be done with this, but what first got my attention is that its tone seems, well, non-neutral, I guess -- it just doesn't seem encyclopedic in tone. It could also stand some basic copyediting, and possibly some reformatting and rewriting in light of the similar information found in the Calvinism article. - dcljr 11:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article needs to be merged with Calvinism, which is far superior an article. KHM03 22:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Calvinism = Reformed Theology ???

I see Calvinism as included in a description/definition of Reformed Theology, but not essentially the same. I would agree that this article should resist parroting the essence of Calvinism and strive for a more informative, perhaps generally more comprehensive description.

For instance, Reformed Theology relates to the Reformation in maintaining the five "solas" and is distinctly Calvinistic in it's soteriology, but it also relates to historic Christianity by holding to the results of the Early Church Councils. I also think Reformed churches are universally "confessional" through either the Westminster Confession, the Belgic Confession, or the London Baptist Confession. From what I understand, these confessions, in a sense, define Reformed Theology.

There is a fairly good article on Reformed Churches. Maybe this article on Reformed Theology should limit itself to a brief summary with primary links to Reformed Churches and Calvinism.

Bottom line: I agree this needs to be re-written, but not simply combined with Calvinism. I need to do some more research and look at other related Wikipedia entries. Jim Ellis 16:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that someone can be a Calvinist and not adhere to Reformed theology? From my vantage point (admittedly, I am an Arminian/Wesleyan/Methodist), Calvinism and Reformed theology are synonyms, much like Methodist and Wesleyan. How are they different? KHM03 17:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I think my answer to your question is, Yes. But I'm no expert. I am saying that there are Calvinists -- both Calvinistic Baptist churches and independent Bible Churches which are Calvinist, especially regarding soteriology -- who would not hold to Covenant theology, the Regulative Principle, or the Westminster Confession. So, I tend to view Reformed Theology as broader than Calvinism. Calvinism in its broadest sense (ala Calvin's Institutes) is certainly more than just a soteriological view, but that theology seems to exist today in the Confessions. Regards, Jim Ellis 19:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What are the things that make someone, say, a Wesleyan? Well, I would argue a belief in certain doctrines such as Prevenient Grace, the New Birth, and Christian perfection. If someone doesn't believe in prevenient grace, are they still Wesleyan? Probably not. Now, baptismal theology isn't something that is uniquely Wesleyan...we share that with many other Christians of many other schools of thought. So, if someone doesn't agree with United Methodist baptismal theology, can they still be Wesleyan? Sure, because as important as baptism is for us, it isn't one of our "distinctives".

Likewise, baptism (for example) is not a Calvinist distinctive; that's something they share with many (hopefully most) Christians. What does qualify as a Calvinist distinctive, then? Well, I would say TULIP, for starters. Not that baptism isn't important for Calvinists...it's just not unique to Calvinism.

That's a long way to go for me to argue that Calvinism and Reformed theology are one and the same, and someone can be a completely faithful Calvinist and not agree with Calvin regarding, say, baptism (which he affirmed for infants as well as adults). So, a Baptist can be as Calvinist as a Presbyterian.

Having said all that, I think we can merge Calvinism with this page. That's my opinion, anyway; it's not super-important to me or anything. I'll gladly defer, but I hope you can see my rationale. Thanks. KHM03 21:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Calvinism is a primary distinctive of Reformed Theology. My personal opinion is that there are additional distinctives beyond Calvinism. I see that my reference to the early Church Councils was inappropriate since that is something Reformed Theology shares with other Christian theologies and denominations, e.g. Catholicism and Wesleyan Theology. I guess my thought was to at least include the Confessional nature as a distinctive. But like you it's not a show-stopper in my mind. Equating Calvinism with Reformed Theology can be an acceptable approach, especially since there is the additional info contained in the entry for Reformed Churches. However, I would allow a little more time for others to respond before executing this proposed change. Jim Ellis 22:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Major Cut

I couldn't resist cutting this article down to a mere reference. It was redundant to a fault, and a poor attempt at defining Reformed Theology. It seems to me that the information in the Reformed churches article and Calvinism are more than adequate to cover the subject. I now have my asbestos suit on, so flame away at this presumptuous move on my part. :-) Jim Ellis 18:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't a redirect be better? KHM03 18:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a redirect would be OK, but I am not sure how to do that; especially when IMHO it really needs to be redirected to two articles, not just one. So, I thought this might suffice. Feel free to do as you wish. I'm not hard over. Jim Ellis 22:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

My opinion would be a redirect to Calvinism, which already contains a link to the Reformed stuff. What do you (and others) think? KHM03 23:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Do it.  :-) Jim Ellis 02:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)