Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arminianism

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Arminianism This page is within the scope of WikiProject Arminianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arminianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArminianismWikipedia:WikiProject ArminianismTemplate:WikiProject ArminianismArminianism

A new article of mine that, like essentially everything else on the topic here, needs to be referenced carefully in line with current scholarly literature. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petrus Bertius has a close relationship to the project: he was the only lay Remonstrant. But also plenty of other directions to follow. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has really clear references it could be very helpful. Arminius died, and Francis Gomarus left Leiden not long afterwards. Conrad Vorstius succeeded Arminius but was in effect excluded from Leiden. Johannes Polyander (Contra-Remonstrant) was appointed, and Simon Episcopius (Remonstrant) was appointed not long after (1611 and 1612, it seems). So two vacancies were filled with people on the two sides; and what I read is the that the Leiden Curators deliberately tried to balance two moderate figures (not really successfully). So what I'm looking for is a way of replacing comments that Polyander and Episcopius each replaced Gomarus (which random reading suggests). A better account could sort this out. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Remonstrants is filling up. I'd like to point out the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie as a resource for Dutch theologians and others. There is a new listing up: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/ADB for an index to pages with the biography lists. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! I ran across this on the bottom of the Arminianism page, and I'm wondering what y'all think about it:

Template:Comparison_among_Protestants

As a "Classical Arminian" or "Reformed Arminian," I have problems with it, a little on how the "Human will" part is worded but mainly on the "Conversion" section. I will quote from Pinson, J. Matthew (2003). "Will the Real Arminius Please Stand Up? A Study of the Theology of Jacobus Arminius in Light of His Interpreters" (PDF). Integrity: A Journal of Christian Thought. 2: 121–139.

p. 133:

On the subjects of grace and faith, again interpreters have charged Arminius with holding semi-Pelagian and synergistic views that make God’s foreknowledge of a person’s merit the basis of redemption and that view individuals as sharing with God in their salvation.... Arminius believed that human beings have no ability to seek God or turn to him unless they are radically affected by his grace.

p. 134 (my emphasis in bold):

“...the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and (attenuatum) weakened; but it is also (captivatum) imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such are excited by divine grace.” Fallen human beings have no ability or power to reach out to God on their own. Arminius explained that “the mind of man in this state is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God.” ...Sinful human beings, for Arminius, have free will, but this is not a free will that has within its power to do any good but is rather in bondage to sin. The grace of God is the only power that can bring people out of this state. Arminius was not a synergist; he did not believe that individuals share with God in their salvation. Human beings are saved by grace through faith. This excludes human merit of any kind.

I think the very label of Arminianism as synergistic is a Calvinist calumny. Any ideas on how to fix this chart? TuckerResearch (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the table has great potential, but needs revision. I'll pray on this and think about ideas to propose. NW7US (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I have nominated the Jacobus Arminius article for the peer review process. Here is the page for the article: Wikipedia:Peer review/Jacobus Arminius/archive1. I want to eventually get the Arminius article up to a good article or featured article level of goodness. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this vague, uncited stub article recently. I think that it duplicates the subject matter of arminianism and conditional election, among others I'm sure. It doesn't seem to have enough information to be worth starting a merger discussion, but I didn't want to stir things up by nominating it for afd, so I thought I would check with you all first. If the subject matter of "decision theology" is unique enough to merit its own article, it needs some serious work. I feel like a tourist (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article and section Grace_in_Christianity#Wesley_and_Arminian_theology is all Wesley, no Arminius. Wesley's view on depravity and prevenient grace is given, but not Arminius's. Something I think we can fix. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been proposed for deletion. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 28#Category:Participants in the Synod of Dort. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]