Talk:History of Calvinist-Arminian debate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Why This Page
There's a lot of information and accusations floating around on the internet, I thought it'd be good to have an impartial, historical understanding of the history behind soteriology debates.
Please feel free to add more information; what I have now is really only scratching the surface. I tried to be as impartial as I could and do not feel that the reader would walk away influenced toward any particular opinion (except possibly away from Pelagianism - and if others feel the same way, please change any offensive parts).
A few quick guidelines: - Try to mention how historical figures relate and why their views were important. This is probably more of an issue on the Calvinist side because so many historical figures come from a reformed background. - I tried to maintain a historical distinction between three different groups - Pelagians, Arminians, and Calvinists. I know from both personal experience and reading that many Calvinists refer to Pelagians and Arminians together. Stephen Ashby and David Pawson, as only two of several I've read, objects very strongly to this.
Enjoy, David Schroder 02:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- As I was working on a revision for the current Arminianism article (see my user page), I wrote a bunch of additional stuff that was very relevant but IMHO too long. It fit very well here, so I copied and pasted it.
- As a result, the article seems currently skewed towards Arminius, the Remonstrants, and Synod of Dort. Please add more in other places to flesh it out! The sections on Luther and Calvin need some more biographical information as it relates to formation of their doctrines, and a history of all the Calvinist creeds and catechisms is also pretty important. The section on Wesley, Whitefield, and Methodism should be expanded. I'll try to get to it whenever I can, but we all know how that goes.David Schroder 04:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changed 'Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam'
Hi - Luther was an Erimite monk in Erfurt, an Augustinian monk, to be precise. I can't think of Augustinian monks holding semi-Pelagian views, though. I might be wrong here, but to be sure I removed that part of the sentence. Erasmus of Roterdam was not a friend of Luther, rather a respected professor-colleague.
Diedrich 20:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Little bit added to 'Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam'
The article stated that Erasmus' views were rejected because of his semi-Pelagian views. I added that his Humanstic view also added to his rejection by Luther's followers.
[edit] POV
The section on Calvin seems to not comply with WP:NPOV. There are many "Some people" sort of weasel-words, and the repeated statement that those some people "claim" (not "say" or "teach" or some other neutral statement). The last sentenced is entirely unsourced, and unverified - that is, POV. Why is not that you "claim" Calvin worked tirelessly for those things, and some others have "taught" that he did not? Pastordavid 16:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merger, Etc
I would support the merger (proposed on the other article) that this article and the Quinquarticular Controversy pages be merged (preferably that one into this one).
Overall, this article is a good start, but needs some work. Many of the statements in it are POV - or at the very least need to be referenced (some it is just a matter of the way things are said, not that they are said at all). Also, consider removing some of the "See Also" material at the end. If you mention something in the article and link there, you don't need the "see also" link; and the converse is also true: if you need a "see also" link for something, consider moving the material into the article. Pastordavid 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
