![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To anyone who runs across this article. Please help me by expanding. If you know of any factualy traits you have observed that might be characteristic of Reformed fundamentalists, please add them to this article.
This subject looks pretty gruesome to me (as a Wesleyan evangelical).
BUT...you may want to contact
Flex,
Jim Ellis, and
Mkmcconn, the Three Reformed Stooges Wise Men of Wikipedia, who are ga ga over all things Calvinist.
Good to have you around...feel free to jump into our Calvinism vs. Methodism dialogues.
KHM03 20:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't help feeling that the article uses the terms, "Reformed" and "Fundamentalism" in a synthetic way (Reformed + censoriousness). There is such a thing as "Reformed Fundamentalism", as represented by Carl McIntire or Ian Paisley; however, this article does not describe groups or movements, but rather an idea, or rather, a critical personal opinion directed toward an anonymous group.
Note that the article does not specify any names (if it did, it might be considered libelous, wouldn't it?), it does not cite any source (although I'm sure that there are many who believe that Calvinists are capable of having both, strong and incorrect opinions, and overly-harsh views), and discovers fault fault by insinuating that the targeted Christians have deviated from some unmentioned standard of moderation. Let me see what I might find just in the first bullet-point, as an example:
I'm guilty, I guess. If a Reformed believer strays from the mean of broader evangelicalism, and professes a conviniced faith according to the Reformed Christian confessions of faith, he will have wandered into the cross-hairs of this article's censorious aim. It is simply a personal essay. I've written a few of those myself; but they are eventually heavily edited for suitability, or deleted. So should this be, and speedily so.
WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, No personal essays. No propaganda. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 00:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It might surprise you that this article was written by a convinced Calvinist who would defend the 5 points and the Reformed confessions. In response to your point that the essay is about "an idea" rather than about any specific group, or about some "anonymous group", I would point out that fundamentalism itself is a phenomenon that is observed in many denominations. Articles have been written about Catholic fundamentalism, why can't the phenomenon exist in Reformed churches as well?
Actually, I find your comments helpful. So let me come up with some proposals to expand this article. I would suggest the following subtopics where I think we can stay fair and factual.
I admit the term "fundamentalist" is very problematic. Some would call me a fundamentalist because I believe in an ordinary 6 day creation, not to the framework hypothesis. So you are right. Traditionalism does not mean fundamentalism. I would consider myself a traditionalist, but not a fundamentalist (though I grew up in a "Bible" church that proudly called itself fundamentalist). We can reword these topics. Please suggest others that might apply. Gregory Y 15:40:43, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
I had never come across the term, and on the face of it, "reformed fundamentalism" can only mean: fundamentalism that has reformed itself, becoming less fundamentalistic. So the exact opposite of what it intends to mean. These shorthand forms can sound very strange. Would "Protestant fundamentalism" be something else? It's less likely that one would imagine protesting fundamentalists when hearing it. Although they always are. Arminden ( talk) 12:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
A significant portion of this article is already unsourced, with the majority of recent edits simply compounding that problem by adding new material or significantly changing existing material without including sources. As for the current sources, most of them are primary, with only a few secondary sources. If the best we can come up with is an article that is based only a few mostly primary sources, then this article is original research (OR) and fails to meet notability guidelines (GNG). New material needs to be cited, and those sources need to be secondary in nature. Please review WP:NOR & WP:GNG. ButlerBlog ( talk) 00:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To anyone who runs across this article. Please help me by expanding. If you know of any factualy traits you have observed that might be characteristic of Reformed fundamentalists, please add them to this article.
This subject looks pretty gruesome to me (as a Wesleyan evangelical).
BUT...you may want to contact
Flex,
Jim Ellis, and
Mkmcconn, the Three Reformed Stooges Wise Men of Wikipedia, who are ga ga over all things Calvinist.
Good to have you around...feel free to jump into our Calvinism vs. Methodism dialogues.
KHM03 20:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't help feeling that the article uses the terms, "Reformed" and "Fundamentalism" in a synthetic way (Reformed + censoriousness). There is such a thing as "Reformed Fundamentalism", as represented by Carl McIntire or Ian Paisley; however, this article does not describe groups or movements, but rather an idea, or rather, a critical personal opinion directed toward an anonymous group.
Note that the article does not specify any names (if it did, it might be considered libelous, wouldn't it?), it does not cite any source (although I'm sure that there are many who believe that Calvinists are capable of having both, strong and incorrect opinions, and overly-harsh views), and discovers fault fault by insinuating that the targeted Christians have deviated from some unmentioned standard of moderation. Let me see what I might find just in the first bullet-point, as an example:
I'm guilty, I guess. If a Reformed believer strays from the mean of broader evangelicalism, and professes a conviniced faith according to the Reformed Christian confessions of faith, he will have wandered into the cross-hairs of this article's censorious aim. It is simply a personal essay. I've written a few of those myself; but they are eventually heavily edited for suitability, or deleted. So should this be, and speedily so.
WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, No personal essays. No propaganda. — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 00:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It might surprise you that this article was written by a convinced Calvinist who would defend the 5 points and the Reformed confessions. In response to your point that the essay is about "an idea" rather than about any specific group, or about some "anonymous group", I would point out that fundamentalism itself is a phenomenon that is observed in many denominations. Articles have been written about Catholic fundamentalism, why can't the phenomenon exist in Reformed churches as well?
Actually, I find your comments helpful. So let me come up with some proposals to expand this article. I would suggest the following subtopics where I think we can stay fair and factual.
I admit the term "fundamentalist" is very problematic. Some would call me a fundamentalist because I believe in an ordinary 6 day creation, not to the framework hypothesis. So you are right. Traditionalism does not mean fundamentalism. I would consider myself a traditionalist, but not a fundamentalist (though I grew up in a "Bible" church that proudly called itself fundamentalist). We can reword these topics. Please suggest others that might apply. Gregory Y 15:40:43, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
I had never come across the term, and on the face of it, "reformed fundamentalism" can only mean: fundamentalism that has reformed itself, becoming less fundamentalistic. So the exact opposite of what it intends to mean. These shorthand forms can sound very strange. Would "Protestant fundamentalism" be something else? It's less likely that one would imagine protesting fundamentalists when hearing it. Although they always are. Arminden ( talk) 12:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
A significant portion of this article is already unsourced, with the majority of recent edits simply compounding that problem by adding new material or significantly changing existing material without including sources. As for the current sources, most of them are primary, with only a few secondary sources. If the best we can come up with is an article that is based only a few mostly primary sources, then this article is original research (OR) and fails to meet notability guidelines (GNG). New material needs to be cited, and those sources need to be secondary in nature. Please review WP:NOR & WP:GNG. ButlerBlog ( talk) 00:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)