Talk:John Calvin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Torture

Okay, get this straight; I am NEVER going to allow the portion of this phrase in italics: "Calvin's acceptance of torture is reprehensible to modern sensibilities." Torture is wrong today, yesterday, and tomorrow, no matter who commits it, for what reason, and no matter how rarely he did it or how common it was elsewhere. To assert otherwise smacks of those stupid, masturbatory arguments over whether Hitler or Stalin was "worse". I don't care how solemnly everyone else agrees to it. I am absolutely unimpressed by the various cheats slipped in here and there which seem to try and imply that Calvin wasn't "all that bad" because he "only" presided over one man's death by burning. Calvin is on record in his own hand as supporting burning and torture in principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.147.1.130 (talk)

Welcome to Wikipedia.

Firstly, I'd like to recommend that you review WP:Civil for official policy regarding edits.

Secondly, I think you may be misunderstanding the phrase that you are remarking on. It does not condone torture nor make any statement regarding the morality of Calvin's viewpoints or actions. Far from being an excuse for torture, it is an expression that describes the commonly-held viewpoint on torture, and it invites comparison between changes in the viewpoint over time.

An excellent comparison, in my opinion, is the discussion of Thomas Jefferson as slaveholder.

dpotter 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like User:Jeremy4031 from further down in the discussion. You've lost consensus, so don't try to edit war again. Yahnatan 19:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude,

It's probably a not a good idea to loudly denounce the consensus in a forum that relies on consensus. Please be practical. Folks here can see that the same pattern of edits keeps appearing from multiple anonymous IP addresses. If you want to be taken seriously, I can't imagine a worse tactic than this one. --Rgfolsom 05:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin speaks up: this IP editor is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. Wikipedia doesn't take that type of position editorially - it's a slippery slope. I've semi-protected this article. Durova^Charge! 21:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Jean Calvin was his real name. This should be mentioned. Is he know as John Calvin in english speaking countries ? Ericd 22:39 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, that's how he's known by English speakers. -- Zoe

He was born with the name Jean Calvin but later in his life it changed to John Calvin.

--Pfc Ender 21:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jean Chauvin was his real name and like many people of his time he adopted a latinised version of his name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve10806 (talk • contribs)

Chauvin or Cauvin. Spelling varied in France as everywhere else. I've never seen a C16 French source that said Jean Calvin. My sense is that the most common form is Jean Cauvin. mtalleyrand

Refreshing my reading on Calvin, I turn up in A. McGrath's biography the recognition that during Calvin's lifetime, the form of his first name was Jehan, and he refers to a document from Calvin's early life from the records of the Noyon chapter that refers to Calvin in this form. In light of this, I'm editing the page, with a reference to McGrath. Mtalleyrand 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jean Calvin?

There is scarcely a single reference to him in English language scholarly works that every calls him anything other than John Calvin, and here it is again on Wikipedia, written up as the article title and in the first paragraph as if that was his baptized name. His beliefs were associated with a certain kind of Christian presbyterianism, particularly in Scotland, consequently I have seen Scottish person after Scottish person described as "Calvinist" or having suffered a "Calvinist upbringing" or being a "Dour, Calvinist Scot". This was so extensive that I spent at least half of my life under the distinct impression that "John Calvin" was a Scotsman. In my view, this Anglo-centric view of him should cease, forthwith. John Calvin is the Anglicisation of the Latinisation of his original name. There must be very few biographies in the whole of wikipedia which start out with a foreign version of the subject's name, and I think it should all be changed to Jean Cauvin throughout. Silas Maxfield (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." As you yourself attest, the name he is known by in the English-speaking world is John Calvin. His proper name is noted in the article, of course. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Predestinarianism

Christian lay-people generally identify Calvinism first and foremost with predestinarianism. Predestinarianism, unlike predestination, is set up in contrast to human free will. The idea is that if people could do anything other than what God foreordained them to do it would violate the sovereignity of God. An unfortunate consequence is that, taken along with the rest of the Bible, this doctrine has God forcing people to sin, and creating some for heaven and others for hell. The contrasting view has people choosing freely for themselves whether or not to turn to God and whether or not to sin. This keeps God from being responsible for evil in the world, and whether or not they go to hell, but also opens the possibility that what God wants may not always be what happens.

Nevertheless, it is not entirely accurate to identify Calvinism with predestinarianism, as this was only a minor teaching of John Calvin. Some of his other teachings have become cornerstones of Protestant theology, and there exist non-Calvinist Protestants who would call Calvin a better selection for the title "father of Protestantism" than Martin Luther.

I removed this whole new section to talk about it, for a couple of reasons. It uses "predestinarianism" as though it were a special technical term, which it is not. The links to Calvinism and Predestination are more than sufficient, in my opinion, for dealing with this topic. Finally, it's not a very insightful or informative treatment of the topic. Of course, I am ready to be corrected. Mkmcconn

I have always heard "predestinarianism" used as the belief that humans do not have free will, and that everything is predetermined by the sovereign will of God. Predestination, on the other hand, could refer to my personal interprettation of Romans 8:29 ("For whom He foreknew, He also predestined..."), which is that God, before the foundation of the world, knew that the Elect would, of their own free will, choose Him, and at that time predestined them for certain blessings (the idea being that, as I have heard it used, predestinarianism is directly opposed to free will, whereas predestination and free will are not necessarily mutually contradictory, in some systems of thought). Webster's Revised Unabridged, however, gives "predestinarianism" as "The system or doctrine of the predestinarians" and "predestinarian" as "One who believes in or supports the doctrine of predestination", which is far more general than my use of it. Anyway, the only thing that I think is particularly important that isn't in the article already is that John Calvin is associated with predestination in much of Christianity, but this was, to him, only a minor teaching. kpearce

My understanding is that predestination was not a controversial doctrine among the magisterial reformers, as it was at a later time. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Bucer, Melancthon - all of them had comparable ideas of predestination. It took a couple of generations before the Calvinists and Lutherans developed incompatible views - although positively stated the Lutheran and Calvinist views are not easily distinguishable. So, it would not be accurate to say that predestination was a "minor" teaching - election and predestination were important to the idea of salvation by grace as understood by all of the Reformers, even as early as Wyclif and Hus (as Deb says below). The story of how predestination came to be so strongly identified with the Calvinists is complicated. It isn't altogether explained by John Calvin's own views on the issue. Certainly predestination is not the "central" issue of calvinism, as so many say that it is. If it were central, you're right that Calvin should be expected to have written much more about it than he did. Mkmcconn 02:32 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm a Presbyterian and consequently I believe in predestination, but I hadn't come across the word "predestinarianism" and I don't understand how it can differ from belief in predestination in any important respect, so I'd support the above change. As far as I remember from my reading of Calvin, predestination doesn't receive great emphasis in his writing, but it is inextricably linked with the doctrine of grace and is a cornerstone of the Calvinist faith. --Deb

You all seem to be more knowledgeable on this issue than I am, so I'll bow out on this one. kpearce

I take it that, by "predestinarianism" you are reffering to the concept that I know as double-predestination, in that God has decided every action one makes before birth, in fact at the beggining of time. Subsequently he has saved some souls and damned others, the reasons why this is the case and how he knows what will happen (he is omniscient) even Calvin agreed as uncomprehensible. However it is, as you say, a cornerstone of the faith. Calvinists believe that they have the calling through living good and faithful lives and, as a result, believe they are among the elect that have been saved by God. Consequently in order to be among the elect and a Calvinist one has to believe in predestination. David 16, Bristol UK

Some Calvinists believe this. Many of us consider this to be a distortion, destructive not only of Calvinism but of the Christian faith. Salvation is not through belief in predestination; and no Calvinist confession says that it is. See the Calvinism article, under "Hypercalvinism". Mkmcconn 01:18, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Theocracy

I think that some mention that critics of Calvin argue that Geneva was a theocracy is an important addition. I will try to phrase it carefully, but it links to many other Wikipedia discussions that mention Calvin and neo-Calvinist religious movements.--Cberlet 20:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a case where show-not-tell works better. I would rather see a more complex discussion on the role of the Consistory in Geneva than imprecise labels like "theocracy." -- db 13:40, 09 May 2005 (UTC)

Some scholars say Calvin's Geneva was a theocracy--others say it was not. Some current small branches of Calvinism openly decribe themselves as Theonomic. Crticis call them Theocratic. At least this debate deserves a mention. If there is a more complicated way to discuss this, have at it; but there are many sides to this issue, and there are some large liberal organizations that argue that Theocracy is the proper term.--Cberlet 15:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"...and there are some large liberal organizations that argue that Theocracy is the proper term." . . . Like . . . who? I think the proper term would actually be "ecclesiocracy"--that is, that the officers of the church were also officers of the state.--JC

Geographical failture

"Hungary (especially in Transylvania)"

Transylvania is a part of Romania and not Hungary...

Regarding this alleged "Geographical Failiure", I would like to point out that Transylvania for sevral decades "belonged" to Hungary. Please look at the transylvania article.

Witches

I deleted the section about the persecution of witches because it was poorly written and formatted, the documentation was in German only, which is inadmissible in the English version of a page like this, and the text originally came from an IP known for vandalism (65.160.148.200; the text was copied by 24.186.74.181). My redacting should not be construed to mean, however, that this material does not belong in the article. The author should post here so we can resolve these issues and get the content into the article if the facts so warrant. --Flex 17:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Flex, I made these remarks. Sorry it did not meet your formating standards. I'm quite content if you rewrite it or format this particular contribution. As far as I know this is a part of Calvin's life which people have rather neglected - or they don't like to talk about it. I have never found any literature about it in English and the books in German have never been reprinted lately. What you wrote about vandalism that's not correct. I'd be obliged to you if you delete this remark. Best regards Ben (aka 80.145.63.210)

Hi, Ben. If the information about has not been "fit to print" recently (meaning it's not a new finding that was unavailable to previous biographers) or in any language but German, I wonder if it is significant enough to belong to an encyclopedia article, which, by definition, gives only a brief overview of a topic. The material would surely fit under an article about the persecution of witches, but I am not yet convinced it belongs here -- except perhaps as a brief example of Calvin's strictures in Geneva (cf. the bit about Servetus). Also, I do think it needs to be documented in English. Could you post here some translated quotes from the book you cited? Certainly, there are non-hagiographical sources out there (say, Will Durant's The Story of Civilization) that might mention this.

Also, the IP address from which your post came (80.145.63.210) differs from both of the IPs I mentioned. Perhaps you've used different computers for each posting? In any case, may I suggest you create a Wikipedia account to avoid being lumped in with a known vandal who uses the same computer or floating IP address? --Flex 20:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Numerous articles have references to foreign language texts. I don't think that this needs to be removed. On the other hand, I think this should be easily verifable in an English language text and I think it certainly deserves to be covered in this article - as we already cover Severus in an altogether too-small section on Geneva. Rmhermen 13:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

"In 1553, Calvin approved of the execution by burning of Michael Servetus for heresy. In 1559 Calvin founded a school for training children as well as a hospital for the indigent."

Can anyone explain how these two sentences are related? It may be only be one man's opinion, but the second sentence appears to apologize for the former... Urbansquid 06:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Following this understanding of the Old Testament law, in 1545 twenty-three people were burned to death under charges of practicing witchcraft and attempting to spread the Plague over a three year period.[5] ---I'm sorry, but is someone honestly trying to peddle the idea that these people actually DID try and spread the Plague and WERE witches? (I know Schaff says they did, but he's full of shit). Can anyone tell me how one would go about spreading the Plague without, y'know, dying oneself? (Especially given that people didn't know how it was spread at the time (by rats)). What is more, WHY would anyone try to spread the Plague? And how would you establish guilt in such a case? It seems like someone here is prepared to give Schaff a very wide benefit of doubt. --JC

Schaff aside, they were burned to death for those charges. Not to mention (as Lewis says) if they really were doing those things, they certainly deserved what they got. It's just that we don't believe in witches any more. I don't think whoever wrote that is agreeing that they actually were doing those things; It is merely a statement that that is why they were burned. (BTW, where does Schaff say that?) ~~JJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.114.136.13 (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Servetus was a heretic not a witch/magician. He did not believe in the trinity. The catholics also burned an effigy of him before geneva. He was a wanted man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.36.81.50 (talk • contribs).

Calvin's Youth and Conversion?

Was he raised as a roman catholic? Where and how did he first come into contact with emerging Protestantism? When did he first profess to be a Protestant? -- 145.254.130.30 17:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC).

Calvin was raised a roman catholic, but it appears that during his studies at Paris, he came into contact with protestant thought. At his time in Paris, there was a controversy between the King of France which expected adherence to the catholic teaching, and significant parts of the theological faculty, which were open to the reformation movement.

This should go into the article. The biography is nearly incoherent. It doesn't say anything about him becoming a minister, it just mentions out of the blue that he had to be carried to the pulpit because he was sick. Sylvain1972 15:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

favor

I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Calvin and Servetus

The wording in this paragraph seems to have been hijacked by emotion, leading to the incorrect use (both, in the linguistic and the historical sense) of the term murder in two consecutive sentences. The historical context was a) a court decision leading to execution for collaboration with a military enemy in the former (see the surprise attack of the duc of savoy on geneva[1]), and b) a court decision leading to execution for heresy in the latter case. Todays copy/paste mentality appears too simple in painting Calvin as a 'murderer' and I recommend the lecture of a widely recognised authority in this regard: Philip Schaff, in his 37 volumes on church history, writes in History of the Christian Church, Volume 8, The Swiss Reformation [2]: "Calvin has the misfortune rather than the guilt of pre-eminence for intolerance among the Reformers. He and Servetus are the best abused men of the sixteenth century; and the depreciation of the good name of the one and the exculpation of the bad name of the other have been carried far beyond the limits of historic truth and justice. Both must be judged from the standpoint of the sixteenth, not of the nineteenth, century." Notable are also the historical details about the actual events given by him in a series of footnotes in [3]. I have therefore modified the wording in this paragraph to fit better to those sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.49.190 (talk)

There is no evidence whatsoever regarding "collaboration with a military enemy" in Servetus' case. It is difficult, in fact, to imagine whom Servetus could possibly collaborate with, given that during most of the last decade of his life, he was on the run from both Catholic AND Protestant authorities. Schaff's reference is a either ignorant or mendacious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.231.110 (talk)

The Coleridge quote seems very much like POV apologeticism. Coleridge lived more than 200 years after the fact and was a poet and literary critic--not a historian. Its questionable whether he read Servetus' most important work--the world for which he was burned, Christianismi Restitutio, which was out of print and of which only 3 original copies existed during Coleridge's life--and, quite frankly, Coleridge became known for his reactionary opinions later in life. He wrote poems praising capital punishment and later re-wrote many of his own, earlier poems, toning down the brighter, more open-minded spirit of his youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.49.216 (talk)

I agree that the whole section needs rewriting with more sources from various points of view. However, I don't think one may set aside Coleridge's evaluation of the situation based on speculation about his sources or mental qualities at the time of writing. --Flex 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not an answer. The question isn't why should his quote be left there as why it was inserted in the first place. I'm going to delete it again. And again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.50.237 (talk)

I feel that it is important to mention the fact that Michael Servetus was captured, tried, convicted and executed by the civil authorites over which Calvin had no control and who in fact hated him at the time. It is thought that they were ruthless with Servetus in order to prove that they did not need Calvin and his consistory around to administer ecclesiastical discipline. The fact that Calvin requested a 'nicer' death than burning is mentioned but messily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.216.182 (talk)

As I said, this whole section needs work, and since it is rather controversial, it certainly needs reliable sources and multiple points of view on the matter. --Flex 13:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've admired the work on this page, and chased away the vandals a few times. I also saw the neutrality tag and the difficulty here on the talk page regarding Servetus, so I took up the suggestion of doing a re-write -- thus I hope I can "be bold" in the way Wikipedia suggests and not step on any toes with my effort. The previous text had mistakenly attributed the "cruelly burned" quote to Calvin, it was actually written by William Trie, a French refugee in Geneva. I also agree that the Coleridge quote was out of place. As for my sources, the Goldmans, Reyburn, and MacGrath texts are on Amazon/Google books; Hillerbrand's book consists of long excerpts from the principle figures. Most of all I hope that I've kept a NPOV enough to take down the neutrality tag at the top of the article.

I also have a suggestion: the section on "Calvin and power" could be improved by separating it into "Calvin and church-state relations," and "Calvin and the Huguenots." Thoughts?

Rgfolsom 15:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Calvin/Servetus re-write has been in place with no comments or edits thus far. The dispute over the previous text appears to be what led to the neutrality tag, and the anonymous editor who placed it there has been silent in the time since. So I believe the tag can come off, based on this text regarding NPOV disputes:

Note that the templates that can be used for NPOV concerns generally suppose that the suspected NPOV problem is explained on the article's or category's talk page. When all NPOV-related issues detailed on the talk page have been handled, the template should be removed from the article or category page. In most cases, however, the least cumbersome way of handling NPOV concerns would be to improve the article or the category description, so that it is no longer POV.

I welcome any opinions about this, and the earlier suggestion I made about revising the Calvin and power section.

Rgfolsom 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work! We'll need to wikify and tweak it a bit, I think, but overall it is much better. The last sentence, however, is rather obscure:

Opinions about the episode are often defined by the same line that separates Calvin's admirers and detractors generally.

I don't know of any Calvinists since the 1800s who think Calvin was doing the right thing by advocating punishing heresy with death (Schaff doesn't, for instance). Perhaps this should be clarified that Calvin's admirers today (nearly?) universally reject this particular series of events as appropriate and righteous. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to contribute to an already well-done article -- tweak away with any improvements you can make.

Clearly you're right that no modern Calvinist defends punishing heresy with death. I meant to capture what I've read in the way historians (et al) fix the blame for Servetus' execution. Calvin's admirers tend to emphasize how the episode reflected the times and circumstance, while his detractors frame it as Calvin triumphant in a one-sided death match. This may be too much to squeeze into one sentence, though I do think it's important to let readers know that where a historian stands on Calvin will often predict where they sit regarding Servetus.

Rgfolsom 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I support his burning. Along with 98% of the people of that day. I can't see how modern secular morality aught to apply. If you believe that he could endanger eternal souls, no temporal punishment is inappropriate. If you believe that there is a liscense to speak heresy, well feel free to condemn it. Servetus was warned multiple times to repent. He was even warned not to go to Geneva by Calvin. Essentially, banished already due to his beliefs. He was active in spreading the heresy by going there. He was seen by many as unreasonable and a ranter. 160.36.81.50 05:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I made some revisions in this regard. Let me know what you think. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The way you've spelled it out is accurate enough, and as a show of good faith, your revision goes beyond the call of duty. Alas, we already see how much good it did. Our anon editor's most recent IP address did get a result from WHOIS, so I included it in the investigation request.--Rgfolsom 19:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The number of punished by death

How many people were executed because of religious or political reasons under the influence of Calvin? Was this proportionally more or less than under the inquisition? Xx236 12:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

According to this source, admitedly not perfectly objective, it's around 38: http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/99812.qna/category/ch/page/questions/site/ Etruth 19:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have updated it using the sources that source quotes. --Flex 20:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Was this proportionally more or less than under the inquisition? Does it matter? Isn't this like arguing whether Hitler or Stalin was "worse"? --JC

According to Professor Alister McGrath there was one person executed for thier religious beliefs in Geneva in Calvins lifetime his name was Michael Servetus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.216.182 (talk)

Please supply a reliable source for that statistic. --Flex 13:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Alister E McGrath: A Life of John Calvin p116 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.214.59 (talk)

Thanks! Can you also supply a quote with sufficient context? In particular, I wonder how he defines "religious beliefs." --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keith Randell - John Calvin and the later reformation P27 says that Servetus was the 'only heretic to suffer the death penalty in Calvin's Geneva (This book has a good balanced chapter on Servetus and is very easy to read) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve10806 (talk • contribs)

further to the above comment Randell states on P30 that although Calvin had execution as the ultimate penalty for many crimes, it was always preceded by banishment and various corporal punishments so only the really persistant ie. Servetus ended up being killed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve10806 (talk • contribs)

Calvin and power

In the section called "Calvin and power", we read this:

Some allege that Calvin was not above using the Consistory to further his own political aims and maintain his absolute control over civil and religious life in Geneva, and, it is argued, he responded harshly to any challenge to his actions. Calvin was reluctant to ordain Genevans, preferring to choose pastors from the stream of French immigrants pouring into the city for the express purpose of supporting Calvin's program of reform. When Pierre Ameaux complained about this practice, some contend that Calvin took it as an attack on his absolute authority as the authority, and he persuaded the city council to require Ameaux to walk through the town dressed in a hair shirt and begging for mercy in the public squares.

I tried to make it more neutral because the previous version sounded like it was written by someone with a chip on her shoulder. Compare this account of Ameaux and Calvin by Philip Schaff. He makes no mention of the issues Ameaux was dissatisfied over but only that he abused Calvin to some folks at a party. Moreover, there seem to be more important instances in the list of questionable punishments in Geneva (e.g., Ami Perrin; cf. Schaff again). In that vein, the account of Servetus needs to be expanded. Perhaps the three subsections under "Reformed Geneva" could be reworked to present a more coherent and neutral picture of what went down in Geneva. --Flex 20:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that Calvin did not see a distinction between civil and religious power, in his view the consistory and the council were there to act as one body to implement God's will (unfortunatly the council didnt agree). It is also evident that he didn't have a 'political agenda' in any normal sence of the word he was merely trying to create a city where everyone lived thier lives obediant to the will of God (or what he interpreted as the will of God). This is also why he was so sure of himself, just like servetus he belived that he had to be right because he was doing God's devine will, he regularly quoted the passage in scripture that says 'If God is with us who can be against us' he very much thought and acted in light of this thought.

I find it hard to approve of the use of websites as infallable sources and on also why is there such heavy focus on the work of Phillip Schaff, anyone reading this talk page would think that he was the only person to have ever written about Calvin some more balanced sources would greatly improve this quite weak article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve10806 (talk • contribs)

Regarding content, we all agree it needs some work. You seem like you've done some reading, so please take a stab at it, citing your sources. Regarding website infallibility: What are you talking about exactly? Regarding Schaff: again, as the discussion on this page reflects, we would all like more citations and different perspectives, but it's just a matter of getting someone to do the research and incorporate the material. Besides, Schaff's a fairly reputable church historian and not approving of all that Calvin thought or did, and his 8 volume history of the church is available online for free, which makes it an attractive source. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

References for section on Geneva Church?

Excuse me - where might I find more information on the layout and practical workings of Calvin's church in Geneva? Am trying each of the external links in turn, of course, but would appreciate more information. --24.131.207.246 05:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Kingdon, The Constructive Revolutionary; Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation; William Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation. I'm glad you're looking for sources. This article needs more sources and less ideological anxiety!Mtalleyrand (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

POV Edits

This quote continues to be added by an anonymous user:

Certainly the veneration of Calvin by several modern Christian denominations in the face his use of torture is morally questionable.

This is strongly biased against Calvin and is not neutral by a long shot. From the looks of things, this user will continue to add this POV statement. Yahnatan 18:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Torture is immoral. In any time period. For any reason. By any person. End of story. --Jeremy4031

So the fact that Calvin approved it means his other stuff should be eschewed? Your standard against him would disqualify a lot of great people in history, since they didn't have our modern sensibilities. Yahnatan 19:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Ah yes; our effete, worthless, secular modern sensibilities that prohibit us from burning people to death. What a terrible innovation they are. Jeremy4031

[Formatting of above comments adjusted.] First of all, this encyclopedia is intended to be as neutral as possible, and it is more neutral without your comment quoted above. Second, Calvinists don't venerate Calvin. They respect him and his opinions, but all would admit that he was fallible. Third, you are making an ad hominem argument that tries to disqualify Calvin's other opinions because of one that everyone today (including modern Calvinists!) thinks was entirely backwards. No one is defending his (or his contemporaries') view of torture. --Flex 19:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Flex; and please review WP:NPOV. Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Flex. As a student at Calvin College some years ago, many people made mention of the mistake of executing Servetus, but we still respected the teachings of Calvin on other matters.--Evadb 14:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV template (which I had added) since this seems resolved. --Flex 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the *burning* of Servetus was opposed by Calvin (who wanted execution by beheading) See, e.g., [4] jrcagle 04:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bolsec

Removed the following line as i tried to rewrite it but found the evidence to support the statement insufficient. Bolsec did convert back to Roman Catholicism but this may be more to do with his refusal to produce a statement of faith and a discrepancy between his and Calvin's views of predestination. I have fund references that state Bolsec made 'slanderous' accusations after he had returned to the RC church but there is a strong suggestion that the accusations were invented as a retaliation of being rejected by the Reform movement. This may have been the source material for the statement below. Neverthless, even if the comment is to be returned to the document the POV element needs to be removed Johnmarkh 21:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

'A close associated of Calvin at Geneva, Jerome Hermes Bolsec, claimed Calvin was an active homosexual and re-converted to Catholicism in disgust.'

Servetus

I restored the section about Servetus agreeing with his own execution. Here's the quote from the citation in the article that allegedly substantiates it: "And strange to say, Servetus himself held, in part at least, the theory under which he suffered: for he admitted that incorrigible obstinacy and malice deserved death, referring to the case of Ananias and Sapphira; while schism and heresy should be punished only by excommunication and exile." --Flex 11:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Servetus NEVER agreed with his own execution. This is just silly. What you are quoting is the MISQUOTE of Servetus by people the people who burned him. An example of this type of misquoting is Beza who was Calvin's apologist and lackey, Beza asks: “With what power, pray, did Peter put to death Ananias and Sapphira? But notice how Beza misquotes. According to the account, Peter did not put them to death, God did that!. Beza intentionally misquotes because he wants to justify. In the same way Calvin and Beza misquote Servetus who was describing why God struck Ananias and Sapphira dead. He NEVER said that it was right for men to kill him for the crimes of Ananias and Sapphira and never admitted that he (Servetus) was guilty of their crime. If ANYTHING Servetus would have thought that Calvin was the obstinate one. But, in fact, during his trial, Servetus actually argued that the interpretation of the scriptures that authorized the death penalty was a false teaching not found in the original Christian Church. In other words, he DISTINCTLY ARGUED TO THE CONTRARY of this statement. But Calvin and Beza AFTER SERVETUS WAS DEAD made this claim that he covertly assented to his own death. It is nonsense and tripe. This quote is utterly and purely POV justification and needs to go. It is not even appropriately salvagable as "Calvin said X" but if it is included here in that way, we should go into greater detail about how Calvin lied on this subject. --Blue Tie 12:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with modifying it, but come up with a source so it doesn't get labeled original research. --Flex 02:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it would be more appropriate for the person who says that Servitus agreed with his execution to show that cite. Its kinda weird to put in a cite defending the non-inclusion of a thought. But I will come up with a reference for where he argued against the capital punishment. It was during the trial. --Blue Tie 03:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the quote from Schaff was perhaps poorly used here, but I don't think it's POV. The intent was to communicate that Servetus was just as much a product of his age as Calvin, the other Reformers, the Inquisition, etc. who approved of death for heresy -- a view which has been thoroughly repudiated by the vast majority of Calvin's admirers. IOW, Servetus held the same theory, though I certainly don't dispute that he would have rejected the justice of his own execution, and had the roles been reversed, I don't doubt that we'd be filling in the section for Calvin being executed by Servetus. I'm preparing some further revisions for this section based on Philip Schaff, who was a theological Calvinist, but no defender of his actions here, and on Will Durant, who was no admirer of Calvin or his theological system. --Flex 14:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Was Calvin French or Swiss

German Wikipedia call Calvin a Swiss of French origin. English Wikipedia calls him French. Who's right. I'm German, and I think I also learned in School that he's been a Swiss. --212.144.130.152 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He was born in France, but he lived most of his adult life in Switzerland. --Flex 20:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but Geneva was not part of Switerland during Calvin's tenure there. Perhaps Geneva was Swiss by culture at the time, as it became by political allegiance much later (1815?). But in the 16th century, I think it was more on the order of an independent city-state. If this is correct, it may explain some of the ambiguity of Calvin's relation to Switzerland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.152.184.74 (talk • contribs).

That seems to be in line with Geneva#History, which says it was contested for a while, was a republic during the Reformation, and finally became part of Switzerland in the 1800s. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of John Calvin

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Schaff?

A LOT of the references in this page are made to Philip Schaff's books, and a lot of credence is given to his opinion, as if he were the "baseline" from which all other facts and sources are to be interpreted. Given his out and out errors--i.e. that Servetus was somehow involved in a plot with the Duke of Savoy to re-take Geneva for the Catholics--I think this needs to be reexamined. Schaff wasn't just a disinterested historian: He was a Calvinist Christian himself and thus with a "stake" in the way the history of his church and its founders were portrayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.49.216 (talk)

I think the whole section needs rewriting with more sources from various points of view, but I don't think Schaff should be disqualified (just as a generally credible Unitarian historian should be a permissible source about Servetus). He is a Calvinist, but not an unqualified supporter of Calvin's deeds. Feel free to add more sources.

BTW, please stop deleting text to generate less neutral verbiage. For instance, you have repeadedly deleted the italicized phrase in this sentence:

Some allege that Calvin was not above using the Consistory to further his own political aims and maintain his sway over civil and religious life in Geneva

This is blatantly against the neutrality policy. --Flex 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

In answer to the question TheologyJohn asked in the edit summary, Wikipedia does offer remedies for dealing with a disruptive editor. The editor disrupting this article used the talk page to declare open disregard for the consensus among other editors, so Wikipedia's suggested remedy is a formal request for investigation. The multiple anonymous IP addresses this editor apparently uses also raises the issue of sock puppetry.

The request for investigation is here. Other editors can (and I hope will) go there to offer comments, so administrators realize that the consensus -- and the disruption -- are genuine.--Rgfolsom 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the multiple addresses represent a case of sock puppetry here. The user is probably dynamically assigned an IP address by his/her provider. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Flex, you're probably right, I couldn't get WHOIS to identify those other IP strings. Anyway, thanks to you and TheologyJohn & Yahnatan for weighing in on the request. I wonder if my sentence about "Calvin's admirers and detractors generally" needs an embedded, pop-up warning that says "Irony alert: Delete this sentence only at the risk of affirming it."--Rgfolsom 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Scrutiny and Guidance

The request for investigation I submitted to Wikipedia made me think about our anonymous editor's apparent grievances regarding Calvin. So I checked three notable biographies, and read Calvin's entry in the current Encyclopaedia Britannica.

• McGrath's 260-page A Life of John Calvin gives "The Servetus Affair" a subchapter of about eight pages
• Bouwsma's 235-page John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait includes Servetus in two sentences
• Bernard Cottret's 348-page Calvin: A Biography (English trans.) has one chapter, "The Trail of the Heretics: Bolsec, Servetus, Castellio."
• The Britannica article on Calvin runs some 4400 words; Servetus receives mention in three sentences. The entry is silent regarding torture and witchcraft. (For perspective on the comparative "weight" Britannica affords Calvin as a historical figure, Karl Marx ran ~5500 words, Thomas Aquinas ~3400.)

In other words, the unfavorable parts of Calvin's life receive much more relative scrutiny in this Wikipedia article than readers will usually find in standard biographical and reference works. Could these other sources have things out of balance? Sure they could. On the other hand, if they offer guidance to how we define Calvin's life, then it's just as obvious that our treatment of Servetus (etc.) may be overemphasized, especially by including it in the lead section. All civil thoughts & opinions welcome…--Rgfolsom 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Schaff gives Servetus considerable attention (around 100 pages in the paper edition if I recall correctly; cf. [5]), and Will Durrant gives him some sizeable paragraphs if memory serves. The issue does loom like a dark cloud over Calvin's life, and I think the treatment in the current article seems appropriate. Whether Servetus belongs in the intro or not, well, that's a harder question, but Calvin is infamous for his role in the whole affair. As far as balance, I think the best thing to do would be to expand on Calvin's positives, particularly in the thought and "Reformed Geneva" sections. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the length of the Servetus section is ok, and that other sections can be expanded, especially Calvin's theology and the social and political background on Reformed Geneva. The political background in particular would shed considerable light on the whole Servetus affair, since it was intricately bound with Geneva's political situation. The Council, which had the sole authority to excommunicate as well as execute, was packed with Calvin's opponents and not his supporters. Calvin's supporters did not gain control of the Council until some years after Servetus was executed. Even then Calvin was not made a citizen of Geneva. Lamorak 18:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Schaff's church history does deal at length with Servetus, though I was looking more for comparisons with biographies. I'm not attempting to argue that Servetus is overdone here (especially given that I wrote most of what the article says about him). My point is that Calvin's negatives are given as much detail as anyone should reasonably expect in a bio of this length; and of course I agree that if there is an imbalance, the best remedy is to expand the other sections. I do have real reservations about the mention of Servetus in the lead section. That should address the defining elements of Calvin's life and influence, instead of an exception (which was indeed infamous).--Rgfolsom 20:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Letters

I've added text regarding Calvin's body of letters. My larger thought is that his "Writings" could be reorganized into three main sections -- the Institutes, Commentaries, and Letters. Thoughts and improvements welcome.--Rgfolsom 18:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Are Calvin's letters significant in the larger scheme of things? Certainly the Institutes and his commentaries are, but while his letters may be of interest to biographers or for clarification of certain historical or theological issues, what makes them of general interest? AFAIK, Calvin is not known for his letters, even if he was a prodigious letter writer. (I confess my own ignorance on this point.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Flex,

A couple of thoughts about your question:

Biographers do treat Calvin's letters as essential to understanding his considerable influence in the debates of his own day; if our article is going to address his "Writings," then a discussion of his letters can add a necessary historical context (though the Institutes and commentaries should likewise have their own sub-entries, hence my suggestion).

Some historians have noted Calvin's place in the literary development of French -- Schaff says his influence regarding French was on par with Rabelais, and similar to Luther's role regarding German.

Also, his correspondence is as close as we can get to a conversation, so I think that revealing the scale of his letter writing can implicitly remind readers that Calvin's more personal side is a rich resource available for study.--Rgfolsom 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some quotes which, I believe, will show the inestimable value which attaches to the letters and correspondence of importance historical figures such as Calvin, Luther, and others.

Whosoever wants to read the life of John Calvin, and understand the wonderful influence which he exercised on his age -- let him sit down to these letters. They are priceless records of the history, theology, manners, and politics of the time. The Church of England Quarterly Review, 1855, p.247,

Such is the estimate of one reviewer regarding the importance of Calvin's letters. Another reviewer speaks of the insights which Luther's letters provide into his character:

The familiar letters of a great man, if they are sufficiently copious, probably furnish us with more accurate data for estimating his character, than either the most voluminous deliberate compositions, or the largest traditional collections of his conversations. The former will always conceal much which letters will disclose; will give not only an imperfect, but perhaps false idea, of many points of character; and will certainly suggest an exaggerated estimate of all the ordinary habitudes of thought and expression. Reason and faith : and other miscellanies, July 1845, p.90 Review of Luther's Briefe, Sendschreiben, und Bedenken, i.e., Luther's Letters, Missives, and Considerations edited by W.M.L. De Wette.

And finally:

The importance of the letters of eminent men, as illustrations of their life, character, and times, is too well understood to need remark. The Letters of Cicero and Pliny have given us a more vivid conception of Roman life than the most careful history could have given; the Letters of Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin furnish us with the most trustworthy material for understanding the rapid movement and fierce conflict of their age; when we read the voluminous correspondence of Pope and his compeers, or the unstudied beauties of Cowper’s letters of friendship, we seem to be in the company of living men; and modern history has in nothing more distinctly proved its sagacity, than by its diligence in publishing the Letters of Cromwell, of Washington, of Chatham, and of other historical personages.[6]

So there you have it. The importance of these "Appendices to History" as Francis Bacon calls such letters, should never be under-estimated. Without them, our knowledge of history would indeed be greatly impoverished. Delta x 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Influence

This is generally a good article about Calvin, the man, and is not afraid to talk his problematic "moral" issues. However, to me, it overwhelms it. The article under represents the importance that Calvin, his writings and his followers had to the spread of various Protestant faiths around the world.

Arguably, Calvin's letters and his teachers had broader influential than Luther (whose followers spoke and taught predominantly in German, even in the U.S. up to the First World War). For the Reformed churches of France and elsewhere, and Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and other Cults who spread Protestant faiths from the UK and the Netherlands to the U.S., Canada, and beyond, Calvin's writings are the touchstone not only for the belief structure, but also for the organization of the many Protestant religious hierarchies. As Rgfolsom mentions above, his writings in French - translated quickly into other languages - have literary power, beauty, and formal balance and that is remarkable even to agnostics, such as myself.

The links to other articles at the top right margin of the main article are good. However, I suggest that someone who can speak and write better English than I can should add a paragraph about Calvin's influence to help readers understand his importance better Charvex 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Childhood?

Wasn't he born into a Jewish family which converted (or he converted) to Christianity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.10.72 (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I think you're confusing Calvin with someone else. Felix Mendelssohn or Karl Marx perhaps? --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the same statement in a book by Hagger, stating that Chauvin was a sonoric translation of 'Cohen into medieval French. Stijn Calle 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased/misleading statement?

The following sentence is carrying a pretty heavy bias: "Servetus was the only person "put to death for his religious opinions in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime, at a time when executions of this nature were a commonplace elsewhere," but an angry debate over this incident has continued to the present day"

While it may factually be true, the sentence is implying that Servetus was the only person executed during Calvin's reign in Geneva. This is both inaccurate and misleading. The exact number of people executed under Calvin's orders if fifty seven (57). The fact that this article does not mention this well-known fact is troubling and should raise questions from any historian. --Virgil Vaduva 00:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that (it is explicitly qualified: "for his religious opinions"), and in fact the article mentions a number of other executions under the "Civil punishments" section. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Flex, I still believe the sentence is biased, however the details in the Civil punishments section seems to elucidate more on those abuses. Any idea why there are no detailed accounts of some of those punishments and trials? Journals of the Consistory's actions are readily documenting some of the more crass punishments, such as imprisoning people for smiling in church, for sleeping during Calvin's sermon, for calling Calvin "Monsieur Calvin – Mister Calvin" rather than "Maitre Calvin - Master Calvin"...etc..etc. None of those events are recorded at all, and to me that is a clear example of a biased presentation of who Calvin was. --Virgil Vaduva 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How precisely is that sentence biased? What would you suggest as an alternative? As for other abuses, feel free to redact and expand (with the appropriate sources, of course), but also be careful not to give undue weight to those matters. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Flex, The sentence is biased in what it implies: i.e. that Servetus was the only person executed in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime. Technically speaking, the child executed in 1568 was killed for Biblical reasons (i.e. religious reasons) - under the guises of Exodus 21:15. Another child was executed for calling his mother "thief" and "she-devil" - under the guises of Exodus 21:17. So the sentence is marginally accurate and also implies that only one person was executed during Calvin's lifetime. Robert Kingdon, Harvard scholar and author of Adultery and Divorce in Calvin's Geneva also recorded several cases of execution of adulterers in 1560 and 1561...also done under biblical pretexts. I will not fight over it because I don't think it's worth it, but that is my opinion. Also, if I edit the Civil punishments section, I will make sure all the citation are referenced properly and will only add the more important events since it would take too much space to reference them all. --Virgil Vaduva 21:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. FWIW, I don't see "for Biblical (or religious) reasons" as being identical to "for his religious opinions," which is what the quotation actually says. So for now I will disagree with you that it is inaccurate. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey..that's fair enough - disagreeing is better than killing each other swords in hand eh? :) --Virgil Vaduva 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is biased, not to mention incorrect. Jacques Gruet, mentioned earlier in the article, was also killed for his beliefs, a fact that the wiki page on Gruet makes clear. Even if there were other reasons (e.g. Gruet didn't like Calvin's theocratic running of Geneva, which is a political, as well as religious, stance), to claim that no one else was killed during this period in Geneva for their religious beliefs is both incorrect and POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.127.75 (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

one of the few cardinal doctrines that Catholics and Protestants agreed upon?

To say that the Trinity is "one of the few cardinal doctrines that Catholics and Protestants agreed upon" is a great exaggeration. While the areas in which Catholics and Protestants disagree may get more attention, there are actually a great many cardinal doctrines upon which Catholics and Protestants agreed, and agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.77.95.90 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree that there are a decent number of doctrines that are shared. Protestants cut what was not necessary. TULIP was seen as the major points of difference with catholics. The Five solas can also be added to the differences.Only scripture, Only faith, Only grace, Only Christ, Only God's Glory. The catholics disagreed not with the substance of saving faith in protestantism but rather the limiting of saving faith to these onlys. Sacrements also become a large issue. Protestants got rid of all of them but the two in the bible. They also changed the meaning from the catholic one. The cardinal doctrines set forth in the first five ecumerical councils are affirmed by all orthodox protestant. Six and seven are not affirmed entirely but in part due to idol/saint veneration and the like.160.36.81.50 05:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Candidate

This article has a Good Article Candidate tag from Oct 2006 -- it is not listed as a current candidate, nor did I find it in the list of current GAs. Anyone know what happened? Was it reviewed and failed? -- Pastordavid 20:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It apparently didn't actually get nominated and evaluated (cf. the nominator's contributions from Oct 2, where Badbilltucker added the banner here and moments later nominated but didn't add a banner to John Locke; clearly there was an oversight on one or both of these). I've resubmitted in its current state. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I've carefully read the GA guidelines and reviewed this article. I believe it is fully comprehensive with highly reliable sources and shows a high degree of neutrality. I am keen on citations and I would definitely like to see that missing citation filled in so that this article can be nominated for FA status Douglike 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge-from proposal: John Calvin's view of Scripture

I suggest that this article could be redacted and incorporated here. It does not seem to me to need a separate article. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that this article is currently 34k - isn't that already longer than ideal? StAnselm 07:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we exclude the references, see alsos, external links, etc., the page is under the old 32k boundary (cf. WP:SIZE), and the substance of this article is not overly long IMO. Indeed, I think it could use considerable expansion on a number of fronts including Calvin's thought. Perhaps in the future an article on Calvin's thought in general or on some particular element of his thought could be justified under WP:SUMMARY, but I tend to think this one should just be merged here at present. Besides, as I mentioned, I would shorten that article somewhat in the process of incorporating it by restricting most of the discussion to that which is explicitly covered in secondary sources with perhaps one or two choice quotations from Calvin himself (per WP:OR). --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion the two should be merged as his view of the Scriptures in very large degree controlled his thought. He was a prolific writer on the Scriptures and his desire that all men live according to their precepts, even to the point of legalism, was his desire. The size of an article should not be at issue, only its clarity and accuracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.218.162.50 (talk • contribs).

Any other comments? If not, I will proceed. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Against. John Calvin's view of Scripture has a fair bit of content - it would only work if you add comparable information regarding other aspects of Calvin's thought - e.g. Calvin's view of the sacraments, Calvin on the church, Calvin on the relationship between church and state. Are you planning on doing all that? Otherwise, this article would end up rather unbalanced. StAnselm 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem of balance or having a finished product immediately. We can add other sections and stub them out (much like I recently did for John Piper) and fill it in as we are able. The issue remains that that particular doctrine does not seem to warrant its own page (as I said, I think it could and should be redacted to a summary with one or two quotes). Generally pages should grow organically, not spring fully-formed from the head of Zeus, as it were (see WP:SUMMARY). I would think an article on Calvin's theological distinctives might be warranted, but this one just seems too specific at this point. --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that interpretation of WP:SUMMARY certainly isn't obvious. It deals with splitting an article off from a main article - it has nothing to say concerning the merits of articles springing fully-formed from the head of Zeus. No doubt more can be written in the main article on Calvin's doctrine of Scripture, but what is already in John Calvin's view of Scripture is worth keeping there. StAnselm 13:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY says (emphasis mine): "Wikipedia entries tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new entries. The text of any entry consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be excised from the present entry and replaced by a link." As I said, I'm not entirely opposed to creating new articles first, but I think this one is too specific at the mo. Also, I added the {{quotefarm}} tag since it is mostly composed of quotations. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i) The guidelines are a great example of what it means to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.

ii) The argument of it being "too specific at the moment" is strange - information that is accurate and useful should always be posted at any time.

iii) Any article of the form "What Person X said about Y" is necessarily going to involve a significant amount of quotation. StAnselm 23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since we still disagree (cf. also WP:MM), I asked for independent input at Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#May_2007. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I converted it to an RfC since we didn't get much response. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

vaguely against, it's customary in wikipedia (my interpretation!) to have a short summary - like a shorter version of the intended section - preceeded by a {{main|name_of_main_article}} reference to the main article. (The purpose is of course to have the articles truly encyclopedic: easy to get an overview, easy to find whatever the reader wish) In this case it would imply:

1. assure that all info in the section is also referred to in the main article,
2. shrink and rewrite the section somewhat, so it is a nice and pretty complete overview.

Said: Rursus 12:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

This is in response to the RfC. There is Wikiquote for extensive listings of quotations, and it is certainly possible to convey a person's thought without resort to quotations. As to the question of whether the articles should be merged, I think that depends on the size of John Calvin's view of Scripture minus the quotations. There is a separate article on the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, but size demands it. While Calvin's theological views certainly could require a whole article, the present content probably doesn't justify the other article. My two cents. 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

From RfC: Merging the quotations is not optimal, in my view. The selection of the quotations in itself might lead to creeping original research. I'd suggest sending the quotes over to Wikiquote and merging the rest of the content here. Hornplease 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

StAnselm, what are your thoughts now? --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not convinced, if that's what you mean. The purpose of the article is, of course, to show readers what Calvin actually said. I'm sure it could be distilled further, but I went through trying to prune some of the quotes, and only one sentence really seemed like excess baggage. Take the spectacles illustration, for example. It's justly famous, and a significant aspect of Calvin's thought. Surely including the relevant quote is better than merely saying that he compared Scripture to a pair of glasses - for that would raise the question, in what way is he comparing them? StAnselm 00:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well let me take a whack at it, and then we can re-evaluate from there. If it's unacceptable, we can always revert. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It shood difintely bee merjed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.142.207 (talk) Yes, but why, O unnamed one? LOOKIE MILK! (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Against. The suggested merge should not be done. A brief skimming of his beliefs should be on this page. It's already huge.

Lukewarm and proud, LOOKIE MILK! (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Servetus in first paragragh

Seeing that articles on such individuals as Philip II of Spain, Henry VIII of England, Ferdinand II of Aragon and various persecuting Popes, either do not mention their involvement in unjust executions at all, or at least not in the first paragraph of the article, it seems inconsistent to mention it in the first paragraph of the article on Calvin. It seems all the more inconsistent when we take into account the fact that Calvin, as far as we know, was the only man in the world at that time who campaigned for some mitigation of the punishment on Servetus. I will remove the reference from this first paragraph; if anyone thinks it should be left there, he could give his reasons here.

Another notable problem in this article is that many very serious allegations are made against Calvin and the Council of Geneva without citations. I do not believe such serious claims (of torture, unjust executions etc.) should remain here without reference to more than one reputable source. (At mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established, Deut. 19:15.) JehoshaphatJIJ 03:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You should add {{fact}} tags to any claims you wish to challenge. I haven't kept up with the changes in the last couple months, but before that, I think all the claims were above board, though citations should still be found. Schaff's History of the Christian Church is a good source on this. Re Servetus, Calvin is relatively well known for that particular incident. I wouldn't be upset it if were kept or if it were dropped. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, the allegations about which I was speaking have since been removed.JehoshaphatJIJ 04:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

The chronology of his life is very unclear - not what I would expect from a good article. Johnbod 13:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph edit

Greetings to all, it's been a while since I worked on this article, I hope to begin helping regularly again. My edit to the sentence in the first paragraph has in mind that Geneva had already rejected Papal authority when Calvin arrived; I also thought it would be good to mention that he both attracted and sent out other Protestants. Rgfolsom 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)