Template talk:Calvinist–Arminian debate
Appearance
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
Why is Pelagianism in this template?
[edit]Why is Pelagianism in this template? I know Calvinists often accuse Arminians of being Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian. (And, indeed, some Arminians may be.) But why is that in this template? I know Arminians often accuse Calvinists of being Antinomian. (And, indeed, some Calvinists may be.) Why not add Antinomianism to this template too? I say remove Pelagianism from this template (create a separate Pelagianism template) or be fair and add Antinomianism. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- To editor Tuckerresearch: I think that Pelagianism was added more because this old controversy was referred to later in the Calvinism/Arminian debate. But of course it is historically a separate debate, then yes, Pelagianism is not 100% relevant in this footer, and it can be removed. ---Telikalive (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Removed, then. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Is this template really useful?
[edit]Now that there is an Arminianism footer, I suggest to create rather a Calvinism footer to avoid redundancy.---Telikalive (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Categories:
- Template-Class Christianity articles
- NA-importance Christianity articles
- Template-Class Christian theology articles
- NA-importance Christian theology articles
- Christian theology work group articles
- Template-Class Reformed Christianity articles
- NA-importance Reformed Christianity articles
- WikiProject Reformed Christianity articles
- Template-Class Arminianism articles
- Mid-importance Arminianism articles
- WikiProject Arminianism articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles