User talk:David Schroder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name.

I've noticed that you have made several edits regarding the Christian faith, and that's great! We have a committed and diverse group of editors in our community with similar interests! Please feel free to ask us questions and interact with us on the various talk pages for Christian topics; we'd love to have you working with us!

If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reformed Arminianism

Hi, David, and welcome to the Wikipedia. Can you add some detail to the article on Reformed Arminianism to indicate, for instance, who advocates that system? A couple authors are listed, but what about denominations or creeds/confessions, seminaries, etc.? Cheers! --Flex 21:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Flex, thanks for the welcome! I'm not really sure how to answer your question, though...partially because my primary experience comes within the Southern Baptist denomination (along with various non-denominational churches). Almost all of my friends, teachers, and pastors have been Calvinists; those that I do know as Arminians have arrived at that conclusion through personal study, not through denominations, creeds, seminaries, etc.
In fact, I'm not even sure how I'd respond to your question if it was broader - Arminianism as a whole, instead of Reformed Arminianism. Unlike Calvinism, I'm not aware of any systematic categorization of doctrine for Arminians. Subjectively, I would argue that since Augustine, and particularly since Luther / Calvin / Beza, the majority of trained ministers (and non-clergy, but educated, Christians too) have held Unconditional Election and the system that follows from it. Most logical minds, seeking a logical theology, have possibly tended towards Calvinism because it is a very logical, very visible system...and the study of theology is mostly made up of people who ascribe a high value to logic.
Practically, though, where does this leave us related to Wikipedia? As much as I can at times enjoy discussing and debating theology, Wikipedia isn't the place for that outside of personal talk pages such as this one.
If I had to guess as to the intent of your question, it would be something along these lines. "Why does this article of Reformed Arminianism deserve space on Wikipedia?"
So then...how can you categorize something as broad as Arminianism, and contrast it to something as specific as Calvinism? I'm not sure. If denominations, creeds, and seminaries are the determining factor for encyclopedic reference, then most Protestant theologies outside of Dispensationalism, Calvinism, and Methodism shouldn't be represented.
I don't think this is the best metric, though. As one who has been a Calvinist until recently, I believe there are two other factors that can determine worth: (1) Historical relevancy (precedence), and (2) Current theological relevancy (practice). I believe that Arminius, as a central figure in protestant Christian theology, has immense historical relevancy. Through his influence, along with the agreement of the Remonstrants and the Five articles of Remonstrance, there is a very strong historical precedent for discussion of his system of Arminianism. Currently, the Calvinist-Arminian debate is fiercely popular with armchair theologians (not to mention trained ministers). As such, with many people claiming Arminius as the founder of their belief system, his views have immense practical relevancy.
Here's the specific thinking that led me to write the Reformed Arminianism article
  • There are many miconceptions about what Jacobus Arminius and the Remonstrants believed
  • The Arminianism article, along with the usage of the word, was too broad and too long already to adaquately clarify distinctions between the man and the popular usage of his name.
  • Clarification of what Jacobus Arminius believed has great historical and current theological relevance
  • However, the article on Jacobus Arminius himself is too narrow, as his specific beliefs were adopted not only by the Remonstrants but are claimed by thousands of theologians worldwide.
  • The term 'Reformed Arminianism' isn't my personal favorite (I tend to believe that it is a bastardization of the Calvinist system and the misunderstandings of Arminius' system) but it does have some (if little) precedent. I don't particularly care for titles in theology, but for Wikipedia they become very helpful. I see the title as an attempt (by the authors who coined it) to re-distinguish the beliefs of a man whose name has long represented a much broader umbrella of views.
I'm open to either changing the name or merging the article with the current article on Arminianism, but the merger would be pretty large and sticky. I'm also open to any other suggestions you might have!
Oh - and if I read too much into your question, forgive my long response ;-) If there are denominations, creeds and seminaries that would agree with Arminius' theology as he presented it, than they would absolutely be relevant. I'm sure there are a few out there, so I'll keep my eyes open and add anything I find. David Schroder 17:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, David. I fully agree that Arminianism and Arminius himself have a place in church history and in this encyclopedia. The question about denominations, confessions, seminaries, etc. was mainly intended to determine who calls themselves "Reformed Arminian" (or holds to the system you described but calls it something else) and how many such Christians there are. But perhaps those aren't good metrics.

The Methodists, for instance, have their Articles of Religion (Methodist) which clearly enshrine their brand of Arminianism, and the same doctrine is taught at their seminaries. While many modern-day Baptists/non-demoninationalists are admittedly less likely to formulate their doctrine in such a "compact" and systematic form, there may be some around or there may be some older formulations or groups or seminaries or whatever. I thought perhaps you might know of some, and that in answering that question, you could help determine how significant "Reformed Arminianism" is in history and in practice today.

My point is that while not everything is deserving of space in the Wikipedia, it is certainly more open to "fine-grained" articles on a wide variety of topics than the Encyclopedia Britannica and the like. For that reason, I would encourage you to continue contributing passionately as you have already to make the WP more comprehensive, but at the same time, I would caution that referencing articles that are only tangentially relevant or of relatively minor significance only adds clutter (cf. my changes to Irresistible grace). --Flex 18:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, Flex. I'm still working on articles for resistable grace and conditional election, so when I'm finished with them I might add a link on the Irresistible grace page, but I think I'll leave out the references to Reformed Arminianism unless the article focuses on Arminianism & Josephus Arminius specifically.
And I also wanted to ask you: do you know of a better name than Reformed Arminianism for this system? One of my original thoughts was 'Beliefs of Josephus Arminius' or something but that seemed wordy and unclear. David Schroder 19:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Where did the term come from, David? Is it a term you coined? If so, it seems to me a better name for it might just be "Arminianism", with Wesley's brand (which is certainly the dominant version today) "Methodism". KHM03 19:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

David, I don't know of a better name for Reformed Arminianism, but I have heard it called that by the author in one of those "four views" books (I only read a review, not the actual book). The page about Arminius' teachings might well belong as a subsection on the page about the man or about the movement known as Arminianism (where the deviations of those currently labeled "Arminians" could be spelled out). If Arminius' actual teachings don't play a large role today or in history, then I'd say it's not necessarily worthy of a separate page.

As for integrating resistible grace and conditional election, you might run them by KHM03, our resident Wesleyan, who rarely bites and who can often be very helpful. (I invited him to jump in here, as you see above.) He and I worked together on getting total depravity to fairly represent the Methodist and Calvinists. Also, when you get to integrating them, you might try something like what I added to Perseverance_of_the_saints#The_Arminian_View, viz. a summary of what you are linking to. Cheers! --Flex 19:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, the term certainly wasn't coined by me...I would probably be more inclined to call it "Historic Arminianism" or "Classic Arminianism", as it is slightly more Calvinist than Wesley, but not a great deal more. I think the differences rest in atonement as an individual substitution versus a corporate substitution, or at least that's the sense I got through reading some of the articles you mentioned (which I enjoyed, btw).
As far as a seperate page, I'd be more than willing to attempt to work the Reformed Arminianism page into the Arminianism page. I do believe that the information has enough merit to stand on its own, but putting it on one page might be a little clearer - particularly as there is no "Wesleyan Arminianism" page.
I do appreciate the tone and clarity that Wikipedia treats Calvinism with (at least the vast majority) and hope that Arminianism can be handled with the same tone and clarity. I'm glad you guys and others are here to help maintain that level of quality.
A lot of my desire to see information about Arminianism grow (in availability, not in persuasion - at least not on Wiki ;-) ) is because during all my years as a Calvinist, I had a terribly difficult time finding reliable, unbiased information about Arminianism - particularly on the internet. I'm persuaded that a lot of the Arminianism which Calvinists respond to in debate is a straw man - in the same way that Calvinists object to a cold, emotionless predeterminism instead of a selection motivated by love.
By the way - is there any way that I can set up email notices for pages I'm watching? I looked through preferences but didn't see anything. David Schroder 20:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't know how to set up am email thing like that.
I agree that most of the info our Calvinist sisters and brothers use to criticize Arminianism is weak, and, often (not always) shows a monumental misunderstanding of Arminian thought (the opposite is also true). But, Flex, myself, and a few others (notably User:Mkmcconn and User:Jim Ellis) worked diligently a while back to make the Calvinism/Arminianism/Methodist theology articles more acceptable, thorough, and NPOV. What exact problems do you have with these articles? Surely we can fix them.
As far as your new outline, it looks OK to me, but it's hard to really judge until you get "meat" in there. Rather than rewrite the whole thing. what might you add to the current article? KHM03 19:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the outline looks good, but the meat will make the difference. BTW, you can create temporary articles in your own personal sandbox rather than making them publicly usable. Try creating User:David_Schroder/Arminianism. We can all still see and edit (I think!) such pages, but they don't show up for people just searching the encyclopedia. --Flex 19:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, sandbox is a much better solution. It's now User:David_Schroder/Arminianism. I'm going to copy the discussion and reply there. David Schroder 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atonement

David...here are some articles to look at, largely from those books I cited. I own the books but will have to locate page numbers & specifics before proper citations can be made.

The Governmental Theory of the Atonement by John Miley
(Miley is the one primarily responsible for developing Grotius' work in this area)
Theory of Satisfaction by Miley
Substitution in Suffering by Miley
(explaining that the governmental view is substitutionary)
The Governmental Theory: An Expansion by J. Kenneth Grider
(this wonderful overview explains a lot; if you read only one of these, read this one)

At any rate, hope you find these interesting. KHM03 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new Arminianism article

I'll look at it when I can, but I don't have a whole lot of time right now for more than just some occasional dabbling. Thanks for your work...KHM03 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fast One being pulled on Jesus talk

Quorum call. Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arminianism TOC

I just saw your edit over at Arminianism, and Imus wonder:Why is the TOC better there? Circeus 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calvinist confederacy

If you have a moment, please lend your thoughts to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvinist confederacy. --Flex 01:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TD

You might want to lend your thoughts to Talk:Arminianism#Total_Depravity. --Flex 12:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPP

You're input is requested at Talk:Arminianism#New_Perspective_on_Paul. --Flex 12:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calvinism v. Arminianism external link

The author of this article on Arminianism v. Calvinism has requested that we link to it in relevant articles, but he does not want to violate the policy of personally adding a link to material he himself wrote. What do you think of it with reference to WP:EL? --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi David,

I'm the author of that article on Arminianism vs. Calvinism. FYI, the article was reformatted, and the site redesigned this past weekend. The italics have been deleted. The article is included in Theopedia, was featured on the front page of Monergism.com, and is read by ~350 visitors/day, many of whom have given it excellent reviews.

Also, I loved your comment here: "Hyper Calvinists (not Hyper-Calvinists, but Calvinists who are simply way too hyper about their view) " I consider most of my fellow-Calvinists too hyper with their imbalanced emphasis. Please also consider my article "Half-Truth Hyper-Calvinism" http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/hypercalvinism.htm Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Greg Goodnews1 00:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Calvinism

The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

--Flex (talk|contribs) 15:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gothard

Hi David. I saw your comment from October on the Bill Gothard talk page. No one responded to it until I did just now. I haven't read the whole article. But parts of it do seem to have highly biased information, etc. I'll probably be making more comments there in the near future.

JBFrenchhorn 06:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arminianism

You may want to review this edit for accuracy. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Another note: your input would be welcome over at Talk:Unconditional_election#Church_Fathers_on_the_doctrine. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)