Talk:Arminianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

Well, it seems to me that this dude is a fundamentalist Calvinist. I personally am not a Calvinist, I don't accepts its teachings and believe that Calvinism contradicts John 3:16 - For God so loved the WORLD that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. I don't believe the Bible teaches limited atonement it is open for all. The biggest misconception Calvinist have about Arminians is that they believe that we believe that we are the ones who look for God first, we don't believe that. We believe God looks for men through Prevenient Grace. God seeks men but men responds to that invitation but we can resist the salvation grace we don't belive in iresistable grace becuase that contradicts John 3:16. I'm a Arminian-Wesleyan and I'm not a Methodist. I belive salvation is open for all if we respond to the Sweet Holy Spirit's invitation but we most certainly can say No. Logically we believe like in Marriage what gives you the sense of your relationship? Was it because you wacked your wife on top of the head? Or did you court her, invited her out on dates, talked to her sweet and asked her to be your girlfriend and continued and asked to be your wife? And she said out of her will Yes; oh and I hope you are still doing all of that to your wife. So what gives you the sense of your relationship was that your wife chose to respond to you out of her own will. Is not marriage a partial representation of the relationship we have with God? Who invented marriage? Now is it possible in the future one can say to his spouse I don't want anything to do with you any more, and what can the other person do? Nothing, in a way that is what gives our sense of relationship that even if you have been married 25, 20, 10, 15, 5 or recently married you love each other out of you own will not because it's forced, that is why Praying it won't ever happen a individual can say to his spouse I don't want nothing with you any more or leave them and what can the other person do? Nothing. Our relationship with God is similar to marriage we are the bride of Christ. Let's remember Paul told Timothy to be careful with money or with philosophies because some people looking for those things wander off the faith or left the faith or abandend the faith. Saying that I would never say Calvinism is from the "pit of hell" I have numerous friends that are Calvinist, in fact one of my best friends is a Calvinist and his wife, who is a good friend from h.s., is Arminian. I witness to her 10 years ago in h.s. and she chose to respond to God's calling. She does not believe she was pre-elected for salvtion because she is the only beliver in her family. She presented the gospel to all her siblings and they all said No. She told me she believes that they have their choices to make and to say she was the only one her family to be pre-elected seems to be a unjust God. She met her husban a few years later and they married and live well. I finish saying in essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, and in all the rest charity. 167.88.178.70 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking this talk page for a discussion forum. Please discuss the content of the article, not your personal theological views. --Flex 12:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling a particular theological view from hell is also a theological view.

I'm addressing everyone, not just you. If you want a debate, take it to some discussion forum or to email. --Flex 22:27, 22 September 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.

On the other hand anglicanism doesn't lean towards armininism either. (Just look at the 39 articles!) For example the large body of evangelical churches in the CoE are definitely more calvinist than arminian. Someone had evidently changed "anglicans lean towards calvinism" to "anglicans lean towards arminianism" and neither being right, I have removed mention of anglicans altogether! CSMR 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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. --64.113.81.179

I'm a Calvinist, and I don't mind pointing out that you are suffering from a common misconception. Historically, the two most famous Arminians (Arminius himself and John Wesley) and their direct followers hold to total depravity, as Total Depravity#Objections to the doctrine accurately describes:

"The doctrine of total depravity was affirmed by the Five articles of Remonstrance and by Jacobus Arminius himself, and John Wesley, who strongly identified with Arminius through publication of his periodical The Arminian, also advocated a strong doctrine of inability. The term Arminianism has also come to include some who hold the Semipelagian doctrine of limited depravity, which allows for an "island of righteousness" in human hearts that is uncorrupted by sin and able to accept God's offer of salvation without a special dispensation of grace. Although Arminius and Wesley both vehemently rejected this view, it has sometimes inaccurately been lumped together with theirs (particularly by Calvinists) because of other similarities in their respective systems such as conditional election, unlimited atonement, and Prevenient grace."

--Flex 12:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why was total depravity included in the TULIP model? --Tim4christ17 02:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the somewhat inaptly named Arminian Remonstrants to whom the Synod of Dort was responding denied it; Arminius and Wesley did not. --Flex 11:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not actually the case. The Remonstrants (who preferred not to be called Arminians) affirmed total depravity, as far as I can tell. This is Article III from the Five Articles of Remonstrance:

"That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing." "

This is, in my opinion, a bold affirmation of mankind's total depravity.

If I may interject some thoughts, compare the first bullet under classical Arminianism (Total depravity) to the fifth bullet (Free will). Supposing these to be accurate, under the first, it is claimed that in his fallen state man has no free will; under the latter, it is claimed that man does have free will. How can this be? Because, the Arminian has defined a "prevenient grace" which has offset the effects of the Fall on the will of every son & daughter of Adam. Hence, for the Arminian (Wesleyan), all have been enabled and therefore there are none who remain in his "fallen state" -- the unregenerate now have free will -- true total depravity has become a non-existent condition. This is what was clearly evident to the counter-Remonstrants who maintained (with the Belgic Confession) that the unregenerate are incapable of turning to God (i.e. they remain totally depraved). Jim Ellis 12:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Flex and Jim said it well. The incorrect assumption about Arminianism's stance on "Total Depravity" was one of the reasons that the article underwent a major revision 6 months ago in the first place. David Schroder 14:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

New Perspective on Paul

This section on the New Perspective on Paul appears to be innaccurate. The 'New Perspective" has actually be been influential among Calvinists of the Auburn Avenue Theology variety. Does anyone have any proof of this? There needs to be proof in this section or it should be removed. Theriddles 17:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Looking at the article "history," the comments regarding the New Perspective (under "Current landscape") were added by User:David Schroder on 3/3/2006. To say that the NPP has "strongly influnced Arminianism" is a huge stretch. The term was coined by James Dunn in 1983 as he and N.T Wright gave new life to the work of E. P. Sanders 1977 book Paul and Palestinian Judaism. The Federal Vision of the Auburn Avenue Theology (which is not the same as the NPP) was an issue which first arose in 2002 in the PCA. While some aspects of NPP and the ATT Federal Vision may smell of Arminian "corporate election," neither of these have had time to influence Arminian theology at all. Jim Ellis 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow - are you guys saying that NPP didn't influence Arminianism at all - or just didn't influence it strongly enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia? Here's what my thought was when I included:

The concept of corporate election was not introduced by NPP, but it was popularized by them. As I understand it, NPP wasn't ever about a defined theological system, but rather understanding historical context and interpreting Paul in that light (i.e. Second Temple Judaism); still, as the big guys spend a lot of time on Corporate election (roughly 1/4 of NT Wright's book "Paul" (which I own) and, from what I've been told, the subject recieves similar time in his other works) I'm not sure what the objection is.

There is a recent doctoral thesis by Dr. Brian Abasciano (MDiv Gordon, PhD Aberdeen) that is in the citations list which discusses the influence of NPP upon mainstream Arminianism which can be cited again in that section if need be. I listed several other notable Arminian theologians who touched upon NPP (whether by name or allusion) in their writings.

NPP has influenced the entire theological world, even stretching beyond Protestantism. I don't see an issue with saying that it had a strong influence on Arminianism. David Schroder 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Abasciano's work. If you want to quote him, I see no problem. However, I disagree with the statement "strongly influenced," which uncited appears as a claim of scholarly concensus. NPP may have given additional considerations to the idea of corporate election for the Arminian community, but to say "strongly influenced" still seems like an overstatement -- all of which begs the question of how it has influenced Arminianism. What resulting change in Arminian theology has come about due to NPP? Citations would be required. If there is a noteworthy relationship between NPP and Arminianism, it would be good to include it in the NPP article as well. Jim Ellis 12:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I understand NPP to be much more than "additional considerations" to Arminianism vis-a-vis Corporate election. Classically (Arminius/Wesley), election was always percieved as individual in nature and based on foreknowledge. With the influence of NPP, many theologians (the list is in the article) have shifted away from that idea. (The line of thinking is that 2nd temple Jews - Paul included - would probably have viewed election as a national/racial - not individual - concept.) Election is one of the absolute biggest issues that Arminianism as a system seeks to explain; thus the import of NPP on Arminian thinking.

I made some changes to the NPP paragraph, hopefully adding some clarity. I phrased it as such: "the recent influence of NPP has also reached Arminianism..." I think the comments & link to NPP is helpful for the scholar researching Arminianism as a system or doctrine, and therefore relevant. If you'd like, I can add a citation from NT Wright & Abasciano at a later time (not home now). David Schroder 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

David, Thank you for your latest revision. I think it is a better statement of the situation related to Arminianism and corporate election. I will let the issue rest now. However, I would suggest that NPP was not new in pointing to the 1st century Jews understanding of corporate (racial) election. Traditionalists would say that is precisley what drew Paul's correctives. NPP is new in suggesting Paul retained the same idea of corporate election (or covenant identification), but merely challenged the Jew's "boundary markers." Peace, Jim Ellis 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim, that's a good point. As a wise man once said (some say the wisest) "there is nothing new under the sun." David Schroder 15:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, thanks for being willing to take a look at this section. The way it read before appeared to be some kind of guilt by association. I'm not 100% convinced it's cogent, but I think the direction you are taking it is more instructive. I think it needs to be developed further before it's clear. Has the NPP affected Arminianism per se, or just some theologians who happen to be Arminian ? See what I mean? What is it about the NPP that is being incorporated to contemporary formulations of Arminian doctrine? If we can't show that, then this probably belongs as a note on the NPP article not the Arminian article Theriddles 04:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Free Will?

This article is becoming far too long and unweildly. It needs significant clean-up and condensing. I also think that the question of free-will, which was the crucial point of contention re Arminianism, needs to be mentioned front-and-center in this entry, so that a person unaquainted with this notion will grasp right away what most of the fuss was about. Remember that this article is not for experts only. ThaddeusFrye 08:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thaddeus, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your thoughts!

I think you will find that if you look at other similar articles on theology (Calvinism for example) you'll find similar levels of detail and technicalities in an article of similar length. There were a few of us that worked really hard on this article Jan/Feb 2006, from several different beliefs/backgrounds, and we were all able to agree upon the content that you see today.

I think if you read the full article closely, you'll find the concept of free will (at least the 'standard' church definition) throughout. The question of how much to discuss "free will" (using those words) is complicated by the myriad of definitions ascribed to the term; just see the Wikipedia article for an example. Therefore, in the writing process, a conscious decision was made to discuss the concept of free will in less ambiguous terms. (Specifically that God's prevenient grace can be resisted - implying human choice).

There was also a conscious effort made in the writing process to present Arminianism as a stand-alone system - not primarily as "Here's how it differs from Calvinism" (in such an article, free will would be the 'crucial point', as it's the primary difference). This is important because Arminianism (both historic and modern) is often defined incorrectly and one of Wikipedia's core values is accuracy. Knowing that a large percentage of readers will be familiar with Calvinism, we chose to include a "Similarities/Differences" discussion at the end of the article.

All that said, Wikipedia is a living/growing organism and (most) change is good. If you have specific suggestions, please share them! David Schroder 15:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi; thanks all (and Dave S. especially), for the strong article. Still, I've edited the opening of this article to make more clear (I hope) the most historically significant distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism. The previous version listed the controversial elements of Arminiamism last in a series of bullet-points, which tended to obscure the significance of the term. Hopefully, this revision is not objectionable and will help readers more easily understand the contextual significance of the Arminian perspective. ThaddeusFrye 06:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thaddeus, thanks for your thoughts! I checked over the revisions but decided to remove some of the changes (unless you can create some sort of concensus on the talk page). First, the line about "Arminian" being understood as a Calvinist insult didn't strike me as being worthy of the 4th sentance in the article. My opinion is that it isn't really needed in the article at all; every debate endears this type of name-calling, accusing less radical members of siding with their opposing viewpoint.

Second, the distinction between "Calvinist" and "non-Calvinist" beliefs in the lead had two problems, in my opinion. First, it was incorrect! Calvinists certainly don't believe in limited atonement ;) Second, framing Arminian beliefs specifically within the context of what Calvin taught does not adhere to NPOV. It's roughly similar to a "Christianity" article being introduced with bulleted points of how it differs from Judaism. This article already has a lot of references to the Calvinist/Arminian debate and, in my opinion, doesn't need any more! All the relevent details can be found towards the bottom of the article (per Wiki standards) and can be easily accessed through the table of contents or scrolling down.

So those are my thoughts. If others have any, please contribute. David Schroder 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry David that these revisions didn't seem useful to you, and yet I do think they are necessary in this case. Perhaps as a committed Arminian yourself, you may be seeing the content of this article from a certain perspective? In opposition to clarifying the relation of Arminianism and Calvinism in the article's introduction, you write: "It's roughly similar to a 'Christianity' article being introduced with bulleted points of how it differs from Judaism." This analogy, I think, reveals some NPOV issues here, given that you seem to suggest that Arminianism is to Calvinism as Christianity is to Judiasm; which is really quite problematic in a number of respects, the most obvious of which is the fact that Arminianism is much less well-known than Calvinism, whereas Christians today outnumber Jews by a very considerable margin. Given that Calvinism not only precedes Arminianism, but is better known today, it makes sense from an expository perspective to describe Arminianism in contrast to Calvinist theology. The history of the term "Arminian" as a term of abuse is also in my view significant, and the omission of this usage is potentially misleading to anyone who turns to Wikipedia while reading the early controversial literature in which the term "Arminian" is so frequently found.

How clear, for example, would an article on Lutheranism be, if it preferred to enumerate a mass of theological beliefs that Luther endorsed, and declined to emphasize Luther's role in breaking away from the RCC, or to describe Lutheran views in contrast with those of orthodox Catholicism? Something like that problem is observable here.

This article, like other Wikipedia articles should immediately provide maximal conceptual clarity, which in this case means that the article must clearly elucidate the break between Arminianism and Calvinism that instigates and defines the movement that this article describes. Providing historical context of the development of Arminianism, and clarifying the contrast with Calvinist thought, and describing popular usages of the term not sanctioned by Arminius would make this article more conventionally encyclopedic and useful. These changes are not intended to suggest that Arminian teachings are somehow secondary, but rather to render the article more conventionally encyclopedic and conceptually clear. I'll delay for now restoring the deleted passages (revised, of course, to accommodate David's correction re the atonement), in case anyone wishes to make any further comments about this matter here on the "talk" page. ThaddeusFrye 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thaddeus, I am a committed Calvinist, and I can see your point overall. However, I don't think that it is the case that Arminianism is unknown. Although Calvinism seems to be on the rise again, at least in America, Arminianism is the majority report among Protestants, even if the term isn't used to describe it all that often.

I appreciate your concern about Arminianism's historical roots, but I think David is right that neutrality requires it be presented on its own terms. This doesn't exclude the historical dimension, but it does instead place the emphasis on the system's positive content. We Calvinists see it as our wayward cousin, but Arminians see it as properly reformed protestantism. In short, I think the history and comparisons to Calvinism are basically neutral and suitable for an encyclopedic article.

As for Arminian being a term of abuse, I think we could incorporate that somewhere, even if it's not in the intro. If you could supply a reliable source that gives more historical detail on the matter, that would ease finding a place for it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thaddeus, some thoughts:

(1) Re: Calvin & Judaism: if you're looking at that example for proof of my bias, I'm not sure what to say. If it makes you more comfortable, feel free to switch that analogy around so that Arminianism is compared to Judaism. Makes no difference to me because it's not a statement of *belief*, it's a statement of what NPOV entails. For what it's worth: I've spent just as many years of my life believing and defending Calvinism as I have Arminianism. The reasons why I changed my mind aren't relevant, but I am in the unique position of having spent years in study and debate looking at the issues (historical and theological) from both sides.

(2) The Arminianism article has a full section that details the specific differences with Calvinism. This is not a small amount of verbage in comparison to the entire article. Wikipedia's standards for the lead are different than the body, which is why I had an issue with you taking a complex issue and forcing it into the introduction. I don't understand your concern about clarity - if you'd read the whole article, you would realize that it's all there for public viewing.

(3) This article is about the theological system called Arminianism. It is NOT just an article about the history of Arminianism. If it was, your concern would have much more weight. From an encyclopedic perspective, the most important aspect is "what beliefs does Arminianism entail?" Secondary to that is a discussion of the system's history and tertiary is a discussion of how it contrasts with other soteriologies (such as Calvinism).

(4) The "which came first" argument is beyond the scope of this discussion, except to say that neither Calvin nor Arminius re-invented the theological wheel. At the very least, the basis for both schools of thoughts had been established previously. Here's another analogy: the Republican Party (US) preceeded the Democratic Party (US) in formation, yet it would be absolutely incorrect to imply that - for a NPOV encyclopedia - the Democratic Party must be understood entirely in light of the Republican Party due to the timeline. Of course, the reality for both situations is that most ideas had already been discussed and the new developments simply gave them a new forum (e.g. a lot of core political issues today were being discussed by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in the 1780s and 1790s.)

(5) From a religious perspective & wikipedia, I'm most concerned with the truth being portrayed. I'm not here to "win an argument". Wikipedia is one of the few places online where Arminianism is *not* portrayed as nothing more than a Calvinist foil (simply because there are apparently far more tech-savvy Calvinists around!). Arminianism has far more importance theologically and historically than to be labeled an opposition view by (as Flex said) the (vocal) minority. I don't want this article to be an advertisement for Arminianism (nor do I think it even comes close). I merely want it to be an accurate source of information for anyone.

(6) What would your honest opinion be if someone made an edit to the *intro* of the "Calvinism" article and stated something like: "throughout the history of the Calvinist-Arminian debate, detractors of Calvinism have frequently referred to this soteriology as a heresy that makes God the author of sin." This is a 'true' accusation that I've heard many times (which I don't really subscribe to, myself) but it does 'not' belong in the lead paragraph for an encyclopedia article. I viewed your addition re: Arminianism as an abusive label in a similar light. I agree with Flex, though. Find a source (you'll notice almost every statement of importance in this article is sourced) and we can find a place for that comment somewhere in the body.

David Schroder 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons to Lutheranism?

Would there be any good that would come from a comparison to Lutheranism? Madmaxmarchhare 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would very much like to see this. From what I have read; Melancthon's view regarding our response differed from Luther's in his final editions of his "Loci Communes." I would not go so far as to say that Lutherans are Arminians due to the fact that they are not necessarily caught up in making the Gospel into a logically tight-fit scheme, as most Calvinists had, thereby causing the Arminian reaction. They hold certain Soteriological principals in tension/paradox comfortably, at least from the little I have read and from conversing with Lutheran pastors. They also unfortunately misunderstand Arminianism itself though140.198.161.75 20:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Vidal

Luke Skywalker?!?!?!?

I checked this page and would have SWORN I saw a reference to Luke Skywalker. I checked back moments later and it was gone. I must be losing it.

Gregkar 05:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I checked the history page- it HAD been vandalized and I'm not seeing things.... Gregkar 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pelagianism

I chose to revert an edit that took out the following statement from the article's lead:

"Additionally, Arminianism is understood by some of its critics to also include Pelagianism, though supporters from both primary perspectives deny this vehemently."

My opinion is that this statement is accurate both from historical and literary perspectives (I challenge you to find any Arminian author who claims the belief system of Pelagianism; every one I've read refutes the idea vigorously) and it is relevent enough to be included in the lead paragraph.

For my Calvinist brothers...it'd be similar to substituting "Calvinism" and "Hyper-Calvinism", would it not? Although most hyper-Calvinists claim the historical figure and teachings of John Calvin; most Pelagians are so far removed from any soteriological debates that Arminius has little or no relevency to them. David Schroder 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Open theism, pelagianism, etc

Why does this article address what most Arminians consider heresy: open theism and Pelagianism while the Calvinism article doesn't say one word about Antinomianism?

TuckerResearch (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Link

I redeleted the link to the Remonstrant Church in the Netherlands because Arminianism is much broader than just that denomination, because we can't and shouldn't list all denominations that hold to Arminianism at the bottom (see WP:EL), and because it offers no unique resource in English as far as I can see. If it truly deserves a mention, then this article should have a wikilink to the church's own article, where this link belongs. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The remonstrants which the article concerns, the actual original ones, are in fact, that specific church. It's not as if this is just some random Arminian church, it is the very church whose origins are described in the beginning of the History section. There is their own article, in fact, it's called Remonstrants. Tb (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the theological system adhered to by many denominations, not primarily the historical group that started it. The link could fit under Remonstrants, but IMHO it does not here for this and the other reasons I mentioned above. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the link is already under Remonstrants. Notice that Presbyterianism has links to some of the more important Presbyterian churches; Lutheranism links to a number of Lutheran churches and federations; Anglicanism links to the Anglican communion's page; Baptist links to many groups, Methodism links to a few important methodist churches and international bodies, etc. The practice seems to be exactly what was done here: on a page describing a theological system, there are external links to some of the more important bodies which are identified with that system. Tb (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The analogy to Presbyterianism et al. is inapt because this is a trans-denominational doctrinal system -- most Methodists hold it, some Baptists hold it, some non-denominationalists hold it, Nazarenes hold it, etc. etc. A better analogy is to Calvinism or Pelagianism, which are also trans-denominational doctrinal systems, and there you will find no such external links. (The external links in some of those articles may be frowned upon under WP:EL anyway -- cf. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) On the other hand, Remonstrants seems like a reasonably good analogy to Presbyterianism et al. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This Page needs Citations!

This is a very thorough page and David and others have done a great job creating it. However, especially since this is SUCH a source of conflict and disagreement, it is sorely lacking citations. For instance the 5 points of the Remonstrants at the first of the article does not align with any Arminian theology I've ever heard of, or the 5 points that Bibleray cites in the discussion at | here There may be a better citation somewhere in these notes, but the reader should not have to search through the notes to find this out. I've added the Citations needed template to encourage and remind editors to cite, cite, cite. Especially on this subject! Amen?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublet89 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Box - Tenents of Arminianism

These tenents of Arminianism do not seem to make sense or be inline with what most people believe to be the tenents of Arminianism. If anyone can properly source/cite these please do. I am hesitant to remove it, because it has been there a long time, and I would assume that some smarter people than I would have already removed it if it wasn't true. However, if I see no evidence of the truthfulness of this part, I will assume we are in agreement that it should be taken out.70.197.167.222 (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The citations for these tenets are given in the body of the article, so I have removed the {{disputed}} tag, which was inappropriately positioned anyway. Probably what you are worried about is their advocacy of total depravity, which is one of the five points of Calvinism, sometimes characterized as five points of soteriological disagreement between Calvinism and Arminianism. In reality, Arminians, including Wesley, hold to a strong doctrine of total depravity but dissent on the other four points and on the nature of the atonement. The real difference here is that they have a different mechanism for resolving its corrupting effect (viz. universal prevenient grace which allows for but does not necessitate salvation) than Calvinism, which sees the prevenient grace in regeneration as necessarily leading to salvation. One may dispute if the Arminian resolution is a "distinction without a difference" compared to not holding to total depravity, but the fact remains that they ardently claim to hold to it. If you have reliable sources that discuss a different perspective, we can try to work them in. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wesleyan Arminianism sections changes suggested

I often link to Wikipedia in my blog posts to define terms and when I linked to the Wesleyan Arminianism section of the Arminianism article I found what appeared to me some misinformation.

There are two statements in the Wesleyan Arminianism section that I don't think are correct.

The first statement is a quote from Harper about what he thought Wesley taught and is in the section as follows.

'"the act of committing sin is not in itself ground for the loss of salvation...the loss of salvation is much more related to experiences that are profound and prolonged. Wesley sees two primary pathways that could result in a permanent fall from grace: unconfessed sin and the actual expression of apostasy."'

This was not Wesley's position. Wesley's clearly taught that committing sin was the grounds for loss of salvation.

The second statement is not very clear but it appears that it puts forth Arminius position that apostasy was final. In other words if you went into willful sin that you couldn't come back. I don't believe that Arminius held this view. The quote is in the section as follows.

'Wesley disagrees with Arminius, however, in maintaining that such apostasy was not final. When talking about those who have made "shipwreck" of their faith (1 Tim 1:19), Wesley claims that "not one, or a hundred only, but I am persuaded, several thousands...innumerable are the instances...of those who had fallen but now stand upright."'

I will drop back a bit later with citations for what I think is the correct position and what I suggest the article should be changed to. In the mean time perhaps there can be some input on this. bobmutch (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "PARK Christianity" section

I removed this whole bit:

Further information: [[:PARK Christianity]]

PARK is an acronym similar to the acronym TULIP, used by Calvinists. Broken down, it stands for Primal Innocence (the belief that children are conceived and born without the stain of original sin); Acquired Depravity (the belief that any sin on a person's account is due to their own sinful actions); Relational Salvation (the belief that a person's salvation is dependent upon an active relationship with Christ); and Knowledge-based Accountability (the belief that humans are only accountable to the sins of which they are aware).

PARK Christians hold to a variation on the corporate view of election. They believe that the "righteous" are corporately predestined, but for service, rather than salvation. They hold that God has chosen the righteous of the world to be his servants, but does not dictate which people take advantage of his righteousness.

First, there is not even an article about "PARK." Second, PARK, as described, IS NOT ARMINIANISM, so does not belong in an article about Arminianism. That's like including a section on Hinduism in the Calvinism article.

TuckerResearch (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1