Talk:Monergism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Monergism falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] NPOV?
I would just like to say that I suspect that this article is struggling with NPOV. I shan't edit it just yet, as I need some time to puzzle out exactly how it should be revised, but an article that effectively says "The Catholic Church is this way, but it's not, oh yes it is" is really not displaying NPOV. Let's try a bit harder, shall we? Zerobot 03:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Perhaps the original insertion of said statement needs to be placed under its own heading. I was reluctant to remove it but could not let it stand on its own as it was incorrect. It certainly should not be in the definition. Do you have any ideas as to how it should be extracted from the definition? Should it stay in the article at all? I did not want to outright remove it because someone thought it important enough to include initially. Will the inclusion of the statement necessitate that there be a section for all major Christian denominations (Or other major religions for that matter,) including their stance for or against the subject? Meng.benjamin 20:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- There are other places as well that are not displaying a neutral point of view. I quote the "Opposition to Monergism" section: "While Augustine presented a series of rebuttals against the teachings of Pelagianism beginning in AD 411, this question has never been answered properly." That is a statement highly disputed by proponents of monergism. Further down it says that the gospels clearly teach synergism (a claim that proponents of monergism would also deny) and that the epistles clearly teach monergism (a claim that opponents of monergism would deny). It seems that it would be more neutral to make statements like "Despite rebuttals by Augustine, among others, this issue is still widely contested." Further down it should say something like "opponents of monergism often cite the gospels which they claim supports their position, while proponents typically cite Paul's epistles in order to support their position as being the Biblical one." In either case, the author certainly shouldn't state things as being fact or as being "clear" when there is widespread disagreement on the issue.
[edit] Structure and POV
Maybe a change in the structure would help the POV issue. Now, I’m not saying this research is completed or anything like that…heck this can just as easily be someone’s doctoral thesis but here you go:
Define Monergism in general--not leading with Christian Monergism
Philosophical/Historical development of Monergism
Religion and Monergism
Judaism and Monergism
-Historical View
-Modern View
Christianity and Monergism
-Reformed
--Historical
--Modern
Islam and Monergism
--Historical
--Modern
---r- 15:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
In an effort to make the article more neutral, I made the "Opposition to Monergism" from the voice of "Syngergist." The opposition section containing rebuttals by the Monergist view counters neutrality and gives a biased argument.--Francis419jn655 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Synergism
Where's there a page on synergism? You would think we need one - and the link to "synergy" is definitely the wrong thing to do, and if we can't make a page on synergism, it should be unlinked right away - anyone who clicks it expects to go to a page on the theology, and making it go to a page on "synergy" is dead inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.58.109 (talk • contribs).
