Talk:Arminianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

POV - "best", "worst"[edit]

In the history section:

"Some, like Philip von Limborch, moved in the direction of semi-Pelagianism at best or Socinianism or rationalism at worst."

A wikipeadia article shouldn't say that something is 'better' or 'worse' than something, as this is opinion. However, as I don't know much about the topic I don't feel I can rewrite the sentence. 217.44.97.242 (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in question. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Further reading" section[edit]

Hi all,

I moved a "further reading" annotated bibliography from this article to History of Calvinist–Arminian debate. It did not seem to really belong here. I mean, there's no "supporting" and "opposing" bibliography section on the Calvinism article, is there? However, it seemed a good fit on the History of Calvinist–Arminian debate page, so I moved it there. On that page it still needs to be wikified. Here on this page I removed the "opposing" Arminianism section, removed the annotations, and wikified the sources.

TuckerResearch (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Salvation by Faith alone in Arminian theology[edit]

Revision as of 17:50, 2 May 2011 (edit)178.99.224.4 (talk)(→Common misconceptions)

In the Common misconceptions section the following was added:

To keep true to faith, by one's own effort, constitutes a work. So Arminianism does, philosophically, teach work as the way to be eternally saved, and not that faith is simply a once for all gift of God (Eph.2.8), that is not upheld by man or the term faith loses its meaning.

I undid the edit because it presented a personal opinion (argument) without citing a scholarly source. Wikipedia is not for presenting a Bible study to advocate a certain view as opposed to another 'incorrect' view. It is an encyclopedia where scholarly views are cited and perhaps compared. If editor 178.99.224.4 can find a citable statement, then it would be acceptable to enter the viewpoint into the text. As editors, we need to guard against writing uncited personal views. Ephesians 2.8 has been explained by Arminians as well as those who oppose Arminian thought. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comparison with Calvinism[edit]

In this section the parenthetical remark saying Arminians "don't believe the Bible" seems like a violation of POV regulations. I'm getting it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.30.141 (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. (Please add the ~~~~ signature on talk pages.) Charles Matthews (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What about Anglican Arminianism?[edit]

This page lacks any reference to the brand of Arminianism which gained ascendance in Laudian wing of the Church of England in the 1620s and 30s. After the Restoration it was among the dominant schools of theology in the Church of England, to the detriment of Calvinism. Laudian Arminianism is a unique species, and reflected the religious controversies particular to England (the Laudian/Puritan battles) and only bears a family resemblance to Arminianism as classically defined, but bears some mentioning nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.37.234 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I was editing Laud's page and came here expecting to read a bit more about it but it is entirely absent.--Britannicus (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for addition after the chart "Comparison among protestants"[edit]

An example of Arminianism can be found in John Wesley, whose beliefs have been contrasted with the five point of Calvinism with the acrostic ACURA.

ACURA[edit]

  • A: all are sinful
  • C: conditional election
  • U: unlimited atonement
  • R: resistible grace
  • A: assurance of salvation[1]

I am a student researcher for Dr. Thorsen, so do not want to add it to the document myself. Klfkyle (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Thorsen, Don (2013). Calvin vs. Wesley. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. pp. 138–140.

source please[edit]

for the following sentence: "Some falsely assert that Universalists and Unitarians in the 18th and 19th centuries were theologically linked with Arminianism." --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If it has no source, either add a {{citation needed}} template, or just remove it. — Confession0791 talk 03:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

regeneration[edit]

this is a newer subject for me, and i was reading through the article and realized that without understanding certain terminology, it would be difficult to understand even the basic outline of the theology/ies. specifically, "regeneration" came up multiple times in the list of beliefs of 'Classical Arminianism." i scanned to the top of that section but didn't see an explanation for this term/concept. so i used the "find" feature of the browser to look for "regeneration." not once was it explained. i finally "found" it waaayy down at the bottom, "defined" as:

regenerated (that is, born again) or saved.

i'm just thinking that MAYBE this term (and even this concept) ought to be explained towards the BEGINNING of the article, since it IS a central part of this theology/belief system?Colbey84 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arminianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arminianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arminianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

16th Century Baptists[edit]

"Many Christian denominations have been influenced by Arminian views on the will of man being freed by grace prior to regeneration, notably the Baptists in the 16th century..."

Seeing as there were no Baptists in the 16th Century, either the source is incorrect, there is an error in its usage, or people have mistaken the 16th century for the 1600's. 2606:A000:8311:CE00:C015:9ACA:EF15:5BF7 (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)AM

I just corrected it, with only 2 years of response time. Thank you ---Telikalive (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

List of recent Arminian theologians[edit]

To Hazhk: I already provided an extended notable Arminian christians list. Recent Arminian scholars cited in Arminianism#Current landscape should be among the most notable ones. In order to provide an objective base of discussion, I put in the table below the Worldcat number of publications at date as a measure of "global notability". I know this number is not exhaustive, and that the type of publications is the most important parameter. And I put the posts about them on http://evangelicalarminians.org as a measure of their "Arminian notability" at date. I recognize that those figures are certainly not a definitive indication of notability. Moreover, I think that this list of people can be improved, and additional criterion should be taken into account. Personally I would not mention Stanley Hauerwas and William Henry Willimon, and I don't consider J. Kenneth Grider as among the most notable Arminian theologians. This is because I don't see in their publications many that promote, explain, defend Arminianism in itself. I even think that Mildred Bangs Wynkoop would be preferable to be mentioned at the place of Grider. This having been said I'm not a specialist, and your reasoned opinion is welcomed about "why not removing him ?" ---Telikalive (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Individual Article Worldcat publications number SAE.org articles number
Stanley Hauerwas 1350 0
Thomas C. Oden 1188 13
Ben Witherington III 808 12
I. Howard Marshall 766 10
William Henry Willimon 608 0
David Pawson 448 5
Roger E. Olson 287 187
Jack Cottrell 167 11
Henry Orton Wiley 145 3
B. J. Oropeza 98 1
Carl Bangs 82 2
Robert E. Picirilli 75 17
Keith D. Stanglin 63 33
Herbert Mcgonigle 50 0
F. Leroy Forlines 42 8
J. Matthew Pinson 33 27
J. Kenneth Grider 26 3
I apologise for the late reply. I saw that you had removed a name alongside a citation and the edit summary did not appear satisfactory to me. Usually when removing sourced content an explanation is given. However I see your edit is reasonable, so I don't object to your improvement. Thanks for your contributions! --Hazhk (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
To Hazhk: Thank for the reminder. You are right, I recognize that I didn't give enough explanation. I know I need to be more careful about that. Thank you. ---Telikalive (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

To do list[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Arminianism tasks list, some tasks to be performed on this article should be:

The "five solae of the Reformation" - but this appears to be a 20th century concept[edit]

Hello. The introductory paragraph states that Jacobus Arminius's "teachings held to the five solae of the Reformation". I do not think this can be exactly correct, since the idea that there were "FIVE" solae is itself only a 20th century idea (according to the Wikipedia article on the solae). And that sounds right to me; I do not remember anything about "five" solae in the Reformation, rather "sola scriptura", "sola fide" and I guess "sola gratia".

But I have never done an edit so I leave this as a discussion point...

Gregory Todd 22.04.2021 172.58.239.70 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)