Template talk:Arminianism

Do we need this template? We already have ones for Christianity, Christian theology, Calvinism, and (most appropo here) Methodism. I think this might be "template overkill"; not every subject under the sun needs a template, and I say this as a committed Arminian. KHM03 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that...part of my thinking was that there's a lot of new information that ties together really well - particularly doctrinal articles - and having that type of navigational aid could help. I think it would be particularly helpful in the respective daughter articles, not the main article.

Since the main article has links to everything anyways, it's no big deal to me if we leave the template off of that one. I do think we should keep it for most of the other articles mentioned...at least at this point. David Schroder 21:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this template is needed, because not every Arminian is a Methodist - see Free Will Baptists, for instance, who pre-date Methodism; just as every Calvinist is not a Presbyterian. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Objections to the Doctrine" section had these comments in-paragraph

Someone left comments in the article itself. They've been moved here:

• The call of salvation can be genuinely made universally - to all

COMMENT: Wouldn't this only be the case for Calvinists assuming all are predestined?

• Jesus paid the penalty only for those who have faith in Him

COMMENT: It seems that is the Calvinist view, not the Arminian, so how is this a point of agreement?

• Jesus' death was a substitutionary atonement only for those who accept Him

COMMENT: Also the Calvinist view- please clarify why this is listed under points of agreement.

Can anyone help re-write these, if needed?

67.83.88.151 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)