Talk:Arminianism

Arminianism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Christianity: Theology / Reformed Christianity / Methodism / Adventist / Charismatic C‑class Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group.
	Reformed Christianity portal This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Methodism work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

Archives

Archive 1

POV - "best", "worst"

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)[reply]

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

"Further reading" section

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)[reply]

Salvation by Faith alone in Arminian theology

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)[reply]

Comparison with Calvinism

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.