Do we need this template? We already have ones for Christianity, Christian theology, Calvinism, and (most appropo here) Methodism. I think this might be "template overkill"; not every subject under the sun needs a template, and I say this as a committed Arminian. KHM03 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I thought about that...part of my thinking was that there's a lot of new information that ties together really well - particularly doctrinal articles - and having that type of navigational aid could help. I think it would be particularly helpful in the respective daughter articles, not the main article.
- Since the main article has links to everything anyways, it's no big deal to me if we leave the template off of that one. I do think we should keep it for most of the other articles mentioned...at least at this point. David Schroder 21:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this template is needed, because not every Arminian is a Methodist - see Free Will Baptists, for instance, who pre-date Methodism; just as every Calvinist is not a Presbyterian. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
"Objections to the Doctrine" section had these comments in-paragraph
Someone left comments in the article itself. They've been moved here:
- The call of salvation can be genuinely made universally - to all
COMMENT: Wouldn't this only be the case for Calvinists assuming all are predestined?
- Jesus paid the penalty only for those who have faith in Him
COMMENT: It seems that is the Calvinist view, not the Arminian, so how is this a point of agreement?
- Jesus' death was a substitutionary atonement only for those who accept Him
COMMENT: Also the Calvinist view- please clarify why this is listed under points of agreement.
Can anyone help re-write these, if needed?
18.104.22.168 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed "Governmental theory of atonement"
Hi all, I've removed the "Governmental theory of atonement" section from the template. I'm not against having a link to "Atonement in Christianity" or more than one type of atonement, but not all Arminians hold to the view and Arminius certainly did not. I quote from Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), "Myth 10: All Arminians Believe in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement," p. 224:
Another misconception is that all Arminians hold to the governmental theory of the atonement rather that the substitutionary atonement. In many books of Calvinist theology the governmental theory, first articulated by early Remonstrant leader Hugo Grotius, is called the "Arminian theory." It is not. Arminius did not believe in it, neither did Wesley nor some of his nineteenth-century followers. Nor do all contemporary Arminians.
Since Calvinists often use the governmental theory of atonement as a cudgel against all Arminians, I decided it best to remove it right now. (Just as random Calvinists often drop by this template and other pages to say that Arminianism doesn't hold to total depravity.) TuckerResearch (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)