Talk:Arminianism

Lie?

Arminianism is actually a lie from the pit of hell that elevates man's "will" over the very Sovereign nature of God Himself. We are all clay for God to do with as he pleases.

Any Arminian who believes that he chose God is "choosing" to believe only the parts of the Bible that he/she deems appropriate. Please read John 1:12,13 and Roman 9:16. Also John 3:27.

I can post or discuss many more.

Please email John_5_24@yahoo.com

I could not disagree more. Arminianism is, in my view, a faithfully Biblical interpretation of the Christian life and theology. That said, perhaps this is not the best forum for your own personal evangelization ministry. I ask that you be respectful on this talk page (and, indeed, in all of wikipedia.org) and contribute honestly and with kindness. Thanks. KHM03 11:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

anyone mind if this topic is removed? I don't know the customs well enough, but the head post doesn't seem to contribute much to the discussion (and I'm a convinced Calvinist!).

--jrcagle 00:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Normally talk pages are left unless they are vulgar, abusive, etc. This one could be characterized as somewhat abusive. It seems to be a drive-by shooting, with the perp not interested in coming back to interact. Pollinator 02:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The opening lines of this page are very strong. Some people need to get a handle on the blood pressure, but lets don't waste paper talking about the poor guy. He has never read the book, "How to Win Friends and Infuence people",but does have a point, you can go to the beach and love "all" the sand. Does it mater to you where you build your castle, or spread out your blanket? You don't have to touch all the sand, if you did why would God leave it up to us to do his work. He does work through us you know, and I don't know about you but I didn't tell that many people about Gods love for them last week, did you? 24.216.163.173 16:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Terry Albl terry53787@yahoo.com

Gee, you've mystified this reader with the sand analogy. Can I just say that virulent attacks like the one above mar way too much of Wikipedia's discussion pages (try looking at discussions regarding small nations, for example). Why can't people take a pill and have a good lie down?--Iacobus 06:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Similarities to RC doctrine

I eliminated a sentence in the lead paragraph which read, "It is not inconsistent with the general understanding of the Roman Catholic church in the areas of concern." The sentence itself is a bit vague (what areas of concern does it refer to?), and I'm just not sure what it means. Mind you, there are plenty of similarities between Arminian belief and RC doctrine, but without context, I just felt uncomfortable with the sentence and its location in the lead paragraph (is similarity to RC doctrine so notable as to be in the lead? I don't think so.). KHM03 14:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not wish to be dogmatic here, but the basic theology seems to be consistent (though perhaps not identical) with RC understanding -- the areas of concern would be the five Remonstrance points. It would be noteworthy that the general Arminian understanding on those issues extends beyond Protestantism. Jim Ellis 14:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

What "basic theology", Jim? Please be specific. Arminianism is a solidly Protestant school of thought...both historically and theologically. Now, is it more similar to RC thought than, say, Calvinism? Sure. But please be more specific. What "issues" are you referring to? in which Arminianism extends "beyond Protestantism"? Keith 14:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, RC doctrine = Universal atonement, resistible grace, no eternal security prior to death, free will, and conditional election. Granted that beyond these points Arminianism is Protestant (especially contra the sacramentalism and sacerdotalism of the RC) but in these doctrines they agree. If so, it is noteworthy. If not in the lead paragraph, then in dicussion below. Jim Ellis 15:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think it could be fair to mention that regarding four of the five points of Calvinism, Arminians are closer to RC belief than Calvinist belief, but let's not overplay the matter. It certainly isn't so noteworthy as to be in the lead paragraph (probably better in the "theology" section). But there's a whole lot more to being Protestant than agreeing with TULIP! Your recent edit read to me as implying that Protestantism is equal to Calvinism, which is, of course, entirely incorrect. Forgive me if I misunderstood. Keith 15:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Peace, brother. I may add something at the end of the Theology section in the future. For now, I will just let it be. BTW, thanks for your perseverance on Chritianity - Persecution fiasco. Jim Ellis 15:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Put it another way: it's a historically interesting question as to how much the Synod of Dort in 1617 was influenced by the perceived similarities between Arminianism and RC theology. It appears to me that at the back of the minds of the Dort coveners was a suspicion that the Remonstrants were trying to drag Holland back into an RC way of thinking. Resisting the RC church was on their minds both theologically and politically. I think the article *might* benefit from a discussion of the Arminian-RC connections, as they were perceived at the time.

--jrcagle 00:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Calvinist corrections

"The Arminians suggested five anti-Calvinist corrections, which are summarized below --"

I frankly have some trouble following the finer points of Christian theology. It's not especially clear to me whether the points listed in the entry here are supposed to be the Calvinist points which Arminianism refutes, or the anti-Calvinist, Arminian, refutations themselves. I don't think I'm particularly stupid and I am fairly well-read on theology and philosophy, so perhaps others might have trouble following this as well. Can anything be done to make this clearer? -- 14 October 2005

Technically the 5 Points of the Remonstrants was a rejection of unchangeable confessions and catechisms. That should be edited out to say "The Remonstrants (who refuted being called “followers of Arminus” or “Arminians”) offered five articles which showed their understanding of divine grace, which are:" ---r- 00:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the anonymous questioner above: The "contra the Calvinist doctrine of ..." lead-outs on each point make it seem that Arminianism was a reaction to Dort's TULIP. Historically, Calvin's Institutes came first; then Arminianism; and finally the Synod of Dort (1619). Until Dort, the Reformed churches had not declared a doctrinal stance on predestination et. al. Note: I'm not denying that Calvin taught all of the things attributed to him; he did. I'm simply pointing out that someone not familiar with the history of these ideas might get a chicken-and-egg confusion from the article. I'm going to attempt to clean up the wording. --jrcagle 04:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Five Points of the Remonstrants

The five summarized points here are actually resorting more to folk belief than actual fact. Here's the actual 5 points | here and can be summarized as the following:

• Conditional Election: God elects those who believe
• Unlimited Atonement Applied only by Believers: Christ died for all but it is only made applicable by those who believe
• Deprivation: Man has no free will and must be born again (this one is being completeley misrepresented)
• Resistable Grace: Man needs God's prevenient grace to do good but even so can resist God's overarching grace of salvation.
• Assurance and Security with Questions: No one can pluck anyone out of God's hands and is given power to remain there yet the fact that there are those who say they believe, walk away, deny Christ...well, let's just say we have to study before prescribing to those people actually persevering.

---r- 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Baptists are Calvinists?

I read an article about Independent Fund. Baptists which suggests they lean more in the direction of Arminianism than Calvinism. The only point where they're clearly Calvinist is in the security of the believer. They're OSAS (once saved, always saved). Other than that, they seem to believe that we have the ability to choose to repent with HS help, we can resist the grace of God, that Christ died for the world, and that pre-destination is based upon God's foreknowledge of who would choose His Son. Funnily enough, the author went on to opine that just because they agree mostly with Arminianism doesn't make them Arminians. The doctrine of Independent Baptists pretty much mirrors that of SBC and other conservative Baptists.

Vandalism

Someone should consider locking this page to stop the recent glut of vandalism. (It should be noted that I am by no means an Arminian--simply someone who values an objective presentation of such an important topic as theology.) --Anothercopywriter 20:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being an Arminian, my friend...Jesus and Paul were, too!  ;) KHM03 20:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Seriously...I'll keep an eye out and, if necessary, get one of my administrator friends involved. Thanks for the "heads up". KHM03 20:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Anglicans

I must question the statement that Anglicans lean toward Calvinism. This may be true of some of those within the evangelical stream, but it certainly cannot be said to be true of Anglicanism as a whole. Anglo-Catholics, for example, are definitely not Calvinists. I have never heard anything even mildly Calvinist preached in the middle-of-the-road Anglican churches I have attended.

Changed the Theology section

The theology section did not accurately represent the Five articles of Remonstrance (as was noted above); therefore I summarized the original five articles, added and linked the article that quotes them verbatim, and made a few other salient points.

The original "five points of Arminianism" were simply the inverse of the five points of Calvinism - a view that is not historically accurate and that most Arminians would not agree with in entirity.

Please feel free to change the wording and phrasing for clarity; just please maintain journalistic integrity to the original articles. David Schroder 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Major Revision Has Taken Place

I have undertaken a revision, merger with Reformed Arminianism, and split into History of Calvinist-Arminian Debate that I believe maintains all of the positive aspects and information currently on this page but adds

• Better organization
• More clear, concise, complete summary of the history of Arminianism with link to a longer, cited History of Calvinist-Arminian Debate
• Discussion of modern proponents of Arminianism
• More thorough discussion of classical Arminian theology
• More information on Wesley's contributions
• Reference to some minority, but influential, Arminian doctrines (Open theism and differing views on election)
• Distinction between Arminianism and Pelagianism, and
• Discussion of differences between Calvinism and Arminianism
• Quotations, citations, and references for all major statements (50+ references total (!) )
• Many more intra-Wikipedia links
• A large list of additional reading (both pro and con)

I've easily spent 50+ hours preparing this page, doing the research, finding the original and secondary sources. I can honestly claim that

(1) None of the material is Original research
(2) None of the material is NPOV - it is all so closely tied to original and secondary sources that it cannot be NPOV
(3) All of the major statements are cited/referenced with the following exceptions:

(a) Much of the historical information is cited on the History main page

(b) Association of Calvinism with TULIP is left without citation because it doesn't really need one

(c) The section that highlights the views of Open theism has no citations or references except as it relates to mainstream Arminianism (but the main site, I believe, does)

(d) The section that highlights the views of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism has no citations or references except as they relate to mainstream Arminianism

(e) The statement "On the conservative side of Calvinism is Hyper-Calvinism and on the liberal side of Arminianism is Pelagianism, but the overwhelming majority of Protestant, evangelical pastors and theologians hold to one of these two systems or somewhere in between." is not cited, but is overwhelmingly held to be true (granted, what I just said was circularly logical, but oh well...)

(f) The section about denomination devisions was pulled straight from the prior version and is uncited (except for the bits about Southern Baptists that I added and cited).

Please - because so much work has been put into this - if you wish to change anything major about the content of the page (i.e. not grammar, spelling, links, etc), please discuss it here first. If changes are made that are not supported, they will be removed. If changes are not clear, they will be edited. Typical Wikipedia policy.

Enjoy the update!

Thanks, David Schroder 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Your hard work is evident; it will take some time to go through it all. Well done! KHM03 11:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few changes due to the peer edit reviews given. Changes include:

(1) Added a longer, better lead-in

(2) Added two pictures - one of Arminius and one of Wesley. This article could use some more, but I'm not sure what or how.

(3) Removed the "History" sub-sections

(4) Moved the "Current landscape" section from "History" into its own category

(5) Worked the list of theologians into a few paragraphs about current scholarship

(6) Various minor edits (capitalization, etc)

I also made a change due to some feedback by one of the experts quoted on this page.

(1) Combined the two alternative election viewpoints (Corporate and In Christ) into one view

(2) Added reference to the New Perspective on Paul movement - a major impetus behind the alternative viewpoint

I think that's all for now! David Schroder 02:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Calvinist revisions

David, overall, I appreciate your thoroughness in attempting to document the article, but I think the quotes are too long and too many. I deleted the quotes in the Calvinist section because I don't think they added much to the article. We just need a summary of the differences there, and the reader can read the full-up doctrine articles for more details. Similar comments apply to some other sections.

Next, I would suggest redoing your footnote scheme. You shouldn't number them explicitly (either with the parenthesized number or with "10-Wesley") because it's likely that some reference will be added or deleted at some point (as you'll note that I did), which will require renumbering all of them. You can use a pound sign to automatically number a list:

1. Some reference
2. Some other reference

The reference names could contain a number indicating which author reference you're citing (e.g., "Wesley-1", "Calvin-1"), but they shouldn't correspond to the overall order of the notes.

Finally, I left the bit on Christian Perfection intact, but I think it needs to be shortened and clearly specified how Wesley departs from the rest of Arminianism on that point. What would/did Arminius and other non-Wesleyans think of his doctrine of perfection?

Just some thoughts. Overall, I think it's good work. Kudos! --Flex 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I copied the above comment from Flex from my user sandbox (where I was working on this page prior to uploading it to the main page) for reference. The edits he is referring to were made on the sandbox page, so I made most of those changes here for him. They mostly included minor rephrasing and formatting. The one major change was the removal of the quotations in the comparison to Calvinism. I am currently re-working those quotes into their respective articles.

There were a few I did not make, per my request to discuss major changes here in Talk before applying them:

1. Removal of the Harper quote in the "Wesleyan Arminianism" section "Possibility of Apostasy"
2. Removal of the corresponding footnote

My comment: The Harper quote re: Wesley & apostasy, to my eyes, clarifies a common misconception about Methodism - namely that salvation is lost with the commital of one sin. The Harper quote adds some very relevant information about Wesley's view.

The whole format of the article is built around the "state it then source it" paradigm. The intended orginizational style was very encyclopedic, but I also desired the referencing style to be very journalistic. Most privately-written, published encyclopedias do not source anything, but rather put a generic list of "references" at the bottom of the article. Wikipedia's policies seem to disagree this - quotations and citations in-body are thoroughly encouraged.

The comment about citations is well-made. I had trouble finding any good examples of footnotes on Wikipedia while writing this page, but after it was written I found some better information. Changes to footnote format to make it more user-friendly will come shortly.

Further comments welcomed. David Schroder 17:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that the section on Corporate election will be reduced when I finish the article on Conditional election. David Schroder 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

David, I didn't mean to suggest that you shouldn't source the article. I think you've done a great job with stating and sourcing appropriately. What my previous comment failed to communicate is that I think we should quote less and summarize more, even though we keep the footnotes in place. In other words, I'd like to see more summaries of what such-and-such author says rather than a long-ish quote from him. In some circumstances, I certainly think the quotes can be warranted, but many of them don't say anything so succinctly or profoundly that they couldn't be merely recapped, IMHO.

BTW, I suggested corrections that you'll notice are lacking in some of the articles I've done a lot of work on (e.g. total depravity). I, too, have learned how to footnote and use templates better than I have done previously. --Flex 14:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Flex, makes sense. I guess part of my reason for using quotations is that they cannot be edited to say something different - they can only be removed, which seems to be a larger obstacle. Statements such as the very one at the top of this talk page show that many people have a vested interest in seeing Arminianism proclaimed as heresy - even in a format that is supposed to be neutral. I have a vested interest in seeing Arminianism represented historically and accurately, even I view it hurts my personal arguments for or against (e.g. I believe that open theism severely harms Arminianism's credibility, but I still tried to portray it accurately).

Therefore...because Arminianism is a controversial issue, I thought it would be a helpful means to NPOV to let the authors speak for themselves. That way, it's not my words, your words, or Joe Schmo's words. In a similar way, I thought the article on unconditional election was good because it portrayed this very easily misunderstood and oft-debated topic in the words of the secondary sources (Bible being the primary source).

I guess in the end, I gave more weight to letting the article about Arminianism be "what the primary historical proponents said" and less about phraseology. Indeed, I've read many articles where readability is completely destroyed by "Group A says this...but Group B believes this...though Group A would counter with this...which in turn denies what Group B says about this..."

If there's any particular passages you'd like to see clarified, let's work through them. Just because I originally wrote it one way does not mean it might be better another way. David Schroder 16:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Irresistible Grace

Oh, I forgot to add...you changed the Calvinist view on irresistible grace to the following: "Calvinists hold that when God exercises his prevenient grace, he regenerates an individual's heart and that person necessarily exercises faith. That is, Calvinists believe God exercises irresistible grace when bringing the elect to salvation." This seems a bit unwieldy to me, I'd probably recommend something more akin to "Calvinists consider grace and regeneration inseperably linked as part of an irresistible process in which God changes the will of the elect to exercise faith."

I also made a minor change to the grammer of your edit on atonement, but thought the additional clarification was nice. David Schroder 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That change about irresistible grace is fine by me. Go ahead and put it in. Funny that you cite unconditional election as a supporting example. Personally, I think it is the weakest of the "five points" articles for the same reason that you like it! I think total depravity and perseverance of the saints are the best of the five.

Also, the change you made about both Arminians and Calvinists believing the call is universal -- that's not quite true. Some Calvinists deny it (see the cited article). --Flex 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I realized that after I made the change, so I substituted the word "call" for the word "message". Because the message encompasses both mercy and justice, I figured this would be accurate. If it's not, then it's probably worth changing back to something like "Most Calvinists believe" instead of "Both groups agree", etc. though the emphasis on unity is lost. David Schroder 17:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I altered the wording of the "Nature of grace" a little bit. I think that it is important to note that Calvinists (e.g. Hodge) also teach prevenient grace, which just means grace that comes before faith. The difference seems to be in what it accomplishes. Arminian P.G. seems to enable people whereas Calvinist P.G. enables and coerces them, as it were, since God has unconditionally elected them. --Flex 19:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here is Flex's change:

Calvinists hold that this prevenient grace is irresistible such that when God's regenerates an individual's heart that person is not just enabled to but necessarily does exercise faith.

Hmmm, this is an interesting point, I'd never heard a Calvinist claim prevenient grace (albeit under a different understanding). I guess it's parallel to how Arminians embrace predestination - again, albeit a different understanding. It does seem from the Prevenient grace article that some (most?) Calvinists reject the title, choosing to differentiate between common and saving grace. Prevenient grace, as used originally by Arminius and later adopted by Wesley, seems to include aspects of both. Indeed I've never heard a Calvinist use that term - it's always "saving grace" or "irresistible grace". I don't have any opinion about Calvinists claiming that term, especially because it's not a Biblical term, but I'm not sure how that effects the linking to the very Arminian-focused article of the same name (which contrasts the Irresistible grace article).

Your change also seems to blur the line between grace and regeneration in an article about Arminianism, which distinctly differentiates between them. I understand your desire to link grace, regeneration, and faith (which is very accurate to the Calvinist confessions) but I'm not quite happy with your change as it stands. I'd suggest the following change:

Arminians believe that through God's grace, he restores free will concerning salvation to all humanity, and each individual, therefore, is able either to accept the Gospel call through faith or resist it through unbelief. Calvinists hold that God's grace to enable salvation is given only to the elect and irresistibly leads to salvation.

Stating it this way, to me, highlights the key difference: whether grace is resistible or not. Arminian PG, if not resisted, always leads to salvation. A Calvinist would agree, but say that there is no possibility of resistance. To an Arminian, grace is still strongly causal - at least in the sense that is influential. The difference is whether God calls a few who must come to Christ or whether God calls all, but allows the option of man backing out.

While stating it this way doesn't allow for what a Calvinist would consider a full understanding of the doctrine of irresistible grace (by whatever name), this is an article about Arminianism and the section is specifically the differences between the two, not complete doctrines summed up in one sentance. And I'd also say that the Arminian sentance doesn't do anything near justice to the full doctrine, but is similarly sufficient for highlighting the differences. David Schroder 20:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I haven't heard from you, I'm going to go ahead and make this change. If you have objections, comment here and we'll keep working on resolving this. David Schroder 16:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

David, I won't have a chance to get back to this until tonight after work (or possibly tomorrow). --Flex 19:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

On closer reading, I don't think Hodge uses "prevenient grace" to describe the Calvinist view, though I think he would be justified in doing so. He does note, however, that the Scholastics (particularly, Aquinas) used that term (gratia preveniens) well before Arminius and Wesley and probably in a sense neither of us would not approve of.

Also, the firm distinction between common and saving grace is not entirely clear within Reformed Theology. Calvin himself uses "common grace" to speak of what we would call "saving grace" in two of the four passages in which he uses the term (see L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, part 4, III.B.1, and H. Kuiper Calvin on Common Grace). In later Reformed thought, the term came to mean what is commonly expressed today (i.e., grace given to all men or even all creation), though it can also mean grace common to the believers and non-believers who are part of the covenant community, and the term "particular grace" (or "special grace") referred to the grace that was given only to the elect.

All this is rather irrelevant as far as the intro goes. I like it better as it stands now, and I think the section on the differences with Calvinism is also in good shape. Kudos! --Flex 03:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nature of election

"The nature of election" says:

Arminians hold that election to eternal salvation comes through (within) Jesus and therefore has the condition of faith attached.

Would it be accurate and clearer to say:

Arminians hold that election to eternal salvation is given to those who are "in Christ" and therefore has the condition of faith attached.

--Flex 20:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The "in Christ" idea is a subset of Arminianism (see corporate election) but wouldn't be held mainstream. Most Arminians would say that election preceeds salvation temporally and is based on forknowledge. But I agree, it wasn't as clear as it could be. Because the doctrine is defined with more clarity and depth both in the above section and in the respective daugher article (coming soon!), I just left it saying "Arminians hold that election to eternal salvation has the condition of faith attached." Just that statement is enough to clarify the difference between it and Calvinism, and it's less ambiguous. David Schroder 20:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to distinguish between two views within Arminianism with the phrase "in Christ." Rather, I was just quoting the scriptural language (e.g. 1 Cor 1:2; Col. 1:2). I didn't quite understand what the two different prepositions in the previous version meant and just wanted to clarify. Your change above does that. --Flex 13:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro & Notes Issues

Flex, why'd you change the intro? I'm reverting it to the phraseology it had originally, as I believe it is a clearer summary of the main article (the purpose of the lead). The main idea is not that salvation can be lost (at least by itself), but that salvation remains conditional on faith. Saying that "God's prevenient grace enables but does not compel faith" doesn't even come close to being an accurate summation of the Arminian doctrine - it honestly sounds like a Calvinist rendition. I strongly prefer my use of the word "deterministic" because it implies the two very principles that set this doctrine apart - (1) that God does not choose a small number to show grace to, and (2) that his grace is not a foregone conclusion - it can be resisted.

I also am frustrated that you removed the headings to the notes section - because there are so many footnotes, I thought it was very helpful to leave those headings. If a user wanted to see what general books he should look at for Wesleyan theology, for example, it's clearly discernable.

These are the types of changes that, in my opinion, should talked about here in discussion before being effected. Notice that when I dislike or disagree with something you've written, I make a note of it here in talk first.

I'm going to revert these changes. David Schroder 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

David, first let me apologize. I didn't think those were major changes worthy of discussion here, and I am happy to delay their inclusion until more agreeable language can be hammered out here.

That said, my rationale for the change about perseverance was that the section was highlighting the differences between Calvinist and Arminian soteriology, but the phrase "continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith" applies equally to traditional Calvinism and Arminianism. It only shows a difference with non-traditional Calvinism, which we generally do not refer to as Calvinism without a qualifier. Dropping that phrase to make it "Salvation can be lost" clearly and succinctly identifies the difference in the two systems and includes both traditional and non-traditional Calvinism. The details about the Arminian doctrine that don't highlight the differences should be left to the non-intro sections.

Regarding "deterministic": I strongly object to that word, not because it is altogether inaccurate, but because the connotation of the word makes it a loaded term and inherently non-neutral. I would prefer a different phrasing, even if it's not the one that I inserted.

Regarding the headings in the notes: I, too, thought the headings were helpful, but you no doubt noticed that I also changed the notes to use a numbered list. Unfortunately, the presence of the headings resets the numbering scheme, e.g.:

Heading 1

1. Note 1
2. Note 2

Heading 2

1. Note 3

Perhaps there is a way around this problem, and if so, I would gladly have the headings reapplied. If a solution can't be found, however, I think using a non-hard coded footnote scheme should take priority over the use of headings because the note/ref templates have links that help in the navigation and make it not so difficult to find the references for a particular section.

Again, I'm sorry I didn't realize that these changes would evoke strong feelings, and had I done so, I certainly would have discussed them here. Mea culpa. --Flex 13:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Flex, I probably got a bit too worked up about it. No hard feelings, I knew it wasn't your intention.

Re: the lead...what I had originally written was phrased more similar to the structure of the article - it highlighted the main tenets (but did not compare/contrast with Calvinism). I honestly think my original format was better - this article is not titled Arminianism, as it compares to Calvinism although from a Calvinist perspective that's what is helpful. Instead, this article is about Arminianism, with reference to Calvinism because of the relevance.

Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main article, I think going back to that concept would be the simplest resolution for the "salvation can be lost" issue. That way Arminianism's tenets become the main focus - not just as they contrast with Calvinism. In other words - have the lead summarize the theology with reference to differences - instead of having the lead summarize differences with reference to theology.

Re: deterministic - I'm not sure how this word doesn't apply to Calvinism...the whole system rests on God's determination, not man's. Therefore his grace becomes deterministic - our reactions (with regards to salvation) are not random, but purely cause-and-effect. I can see how this narrow adjectival use of the term (where it directly modifies "grace") can be confused with determinism as a philosophy system (which Calvinism does indeed reject - at least at that detail level. I can also see how this use can conjure up connotations of lack of free will (whereas the Calvinist distinction is that free will exists, but God changes our will to effect faith). So, because of those reasons, in combination with the respect I still hold for many Calvinists, and a desire to be NPOV, I'll rephrase that.

My change will instead read "God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe"

Re: notes, see Wikipedia:Footnotes for how I've been planning on updating them. There's a new footnote format that's an update to the footnote3 method (the ref and note commands) That way, the footnotes are tied directly to the note itself. I haven't figured out a good way to keep the headings using this method though; still a work in progress.

-- David Schroder 15:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made changes to the notes system; I still couldn't find a way to include formatting, so you'll notice I added a small section that details which footnotes belong where. I think that's the best solution, at least temporarily.

I also wonder why it's relevant to include some of the resources you added to the "Opposing" section; the three that I put in there all have sections specific to Arminianism, including critiques. I'm not familiar with all the ones you added - if part of their purpose is to address Armininianism directly, than they're probably very beneficial. If they're just standard defenses of Calvinism, they probably belong on the main Calvinism page - in the same way, most of the "supporting" books referenced here don't address Calvinism directly and shouldn't be included as "Further resources" on the Calvinism page. -- David Schroder 16:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

David, I tend to think the headings should be deleted simply because they won't be kept up to date automatically, and it will become tedious/error-prone to keep them up to date manually. Anons and various other people will add text and notes and move things around. That's just the nature of the Wikipedia. So I suggest we make things more maintainable by deleting the headings -- unless an automatic way to maintain them can be found. One way might be to use HTML instead of Wikipedia tags:

Heading 1
1. Note 1
2. Note 2
   Heading 2
3. Note 3

As you can see, this aligns the headings with the note text, not the numbers, so it may not be the most aesthetically appealing, though perhaps that can be configured also.

As for the books, I'll shorten the list some, but I felt comfortable adding all those books because Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology was already there and doesn't deal only with Calvinism vis-a-vis Arminianism. --Flex 04:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No you're right - they don't have to only be about Calv/Arm; the reason I added Grudem is because he talks specifically about all the different Arminian doctrines and gives his scriptural reasons why he disagrees. That's why, and because Grudem is such a good author, I didn't really mind advertising his systematic theology even if he comes out Calvinst ;-) It was actually his writings, in combination with Piper and a general Calvinistic understanding of Arminianism, that originally put me firmly on the Calvinist side of the debate. Of course, that evil has now been undone ;-) Just kidding. But my original request was more a query and less of a challenge - I'm not familiar with all of those, so if they spend some of their time specifically challenging Arminianism, they're valuable to the page.

-- David Schroder 13:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. My list in the previous post didn't work. Either the other computer/browser I was using behaved differently or I missed that it didn't number them correctly. Oh well.

As for the books, nearly all Calvinist discussions of the doctrines of grace spend considerable time discussing the alternate views, particularly Arminianism since it's the "archrival." Hodge also discusses pre-Reformation views, Lutheranism's view (pre and post Melancthalon), Modernism, etc. Berkhof adds Neo-orthodoxy, which came after Hodge. --Flex 17:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. I'm not really sure where a good line is. A lot of Arminianism books spend a lot of time talking about Calvinism too...I guess it's like - all books about the republican party spend a lot of time talking about the democratic party, but some of them still wouldn't deserve to be "further resources" on the democrat part Wikipedia page. Bottom line: I don't know! Since you're more familiar, add whatever you feel would be a good further resource on Arminianism. David Schroder 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh - re: notes, I'll be keeping my eye on the page for at least the next little bit, though at some point I'll probably start to tune out. Until then, I'll make sure the notes list stays sorted. I also don't think it's particularly challenging to increment numbers as necessary but I guess I'll find out in the long run.

This page has been up for a while on the peer edit site, I'd like to get it featured because that would give it a little bit more weight in terms of reckless editing. If at some point in that process, others also call for the removal of the headings, I'll go ahead and delete them. David Schroder 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Formatting of "Main" and "Further Information"

The changes from simply typing out Main article: ____ etc seemed to introduce some weird formatting issues (the main and further items are indented differently, there is a full line space between them instead of 1/2 line space, etc).

Anyone know a way to fix this? David Schroder 16:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On second look, I think it's an issue with further...is there a way to edit that command to make it similar to main? David Schroder 16:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Try editing Template:Further. --Flex 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That seemed to fix it. Thanks! David Schroder 19:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Adventists remarks

I chose to put in the fact that Seventh-day Adventists were one of the largest Wesleyan Arminian groups. Then somebody chose to say we were called a cult. I temporarily put in the fact that Evangelical scholars refute this accusation. Then I decided that it would fit in the text better to just put our name in the list with Pentecostals, etc. and removed reference to size and orthodoxy. User: Alvin Fisher 31 May 2006

I think your changes are fine, but I don't think your edit summary was accurate in calling the previous text "slander." It said (in an NPOV way, IMHO) that "many [not all] evangelicals consider it a cult." That clause only describes the belief of some evangelicals (whether right or wrong); it does not judge that belief. Even so, I think the article is better without the clause since the perceived bounds of Christendom is not the subject of the present article. --Flex 12:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Total Depravity

The Calvinism article is correct in stating that the TULIP model was a list of the doctrines in which Calvinists and Arminians differed. However, this article is incorrectly stating that Arminians and Calvinists agree on the first point of the TULIP model - total depravity. In reality, Arminians hold the opposite view - which is that people are NOT totally depraved.