Talk:History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate

message: I am not an editor of this article, only a reader.  Though as a reader, I found the introduction to this article a bit confusing.  Someone who knows the facts should rephrase the end of the intro to be more clear as to what parties are in disagreement.  Thank you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.235.216 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite the Intro? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changed 'Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger, Etc 

message: I get the general but fuzzy impression in the text that "Reformed" equals "Calvinist", which I deem not necessary, since the founder of Reformed churches was Zwingli, and Calvin proponed a particular extremist version in Geneva. By this reasoning, Arminians/Remonstrants are Reformed as well? Right/wrong? Said: Rursus 14:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reformed and Calvinist are often used as synonyms (in casual use and in reliable sources including academic publications), though strictly speaking that's not entirely accurate (cf. the intro to Calvinism). It's similar to how "Americans" is used to designate people exclusively from the US, even though people from Canada or Mexico or Brazil are also technically Americans. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformed = Calvinist?

message: Mennonite theology, and others in the Anabaptist tradition, seem to take a Arminian stance.  Should this be referenced?  66.191.19.218 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mennonites? 

message: Maybe there are polemicists who have referred to Aquinas as a semi-Pelagian, but even the best Protestant historians like Richard Muller, Alister McGrath, and Jaroslav Pelikan (and the most rigorous scholars of Thomas's soteriology like Joseph Wawrykow) have concurred that, on soteriological matters, the Thomas Aquinas of the Summa Theologiae is incredibly faithful to the emphases of St. Augustine. Now, it may be true that Thomas Aquinas is not in conformity with later Calvinism, though this would need to be argued out, but where Thomas and the Calvinists part ways, I would argue that Calvin departs from Augustine as well. I would be very interested in working through the sources on this matter if this point does not immediately resonate with you.
Even if we were limited to the perceptions of the Calvinists and Arminians in their debate, this is an important point to make.  Calvinists drew quite heavily on Thomas Aquinas and later Thomist thinkers in formulating their position against the Arminians.  They believed that their debate mirrored the earlier debate between the Dominicans and Jesuits in the De Auxiliis controversy.  I can also show you secondary sources pointing this, if you are interested. Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusrex1545 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Aquinas 

message: I think the article also may ignore some of the departure of Calvin from Augustine.  And this is not a theological statement.  It is important for fully grasping the historical context.  Indeed, the Reformers said so themselves that their relationship with Augustine was complex.  Consider these quotations (drawn from a fine article from the Journal of Evangelical Theology: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200403/ai_n9401133/pg_7?tag=content;col1):
Luther was not unaware of his position with regard to Augustine. He was quoted in his Table Talk, dated from November of 1531:
"It was Augustine's view that the law, fulfilled by the powers of reason, does not justify, even as works of the moral law do not justify the heathen, but that if the Holy Spirit assists, the works of the law do justify. The question is not whether the law or the works of reason justify, but whether the law, kept with the Spirit's help, justifies. I reply by saying No. . . . Works never give a peaceful heart."58
Almost a year later Luther was quoted as saying:
"Ever since I came to an understanding of Paul, I have not been able to think well of any doctor [of the church]. They have become of little value to me. At first I devoured, not merely read, Augustine. But when the door was opened for me in Paul, so that I understood what justification by faith is, it was all over with Augustine."59
Late in life, Luther acknowledged both his debt to and his distance from Augustine.60 he wrote about a time shortly after his momentous insight into Rom 1:16-17:
"Afterwards, I was reading Augustine's On the Spirit and the Letter, where beyond hope I found that he interpreted the righteousness of God in a similar way, as that righteousness with which God clothes us, when he justifies us. And although it was thus far spoken imperfectly, as he did not clearly explain everything concerning imputation (ac de imputations non dare omnia explicet), nevertheless it was pleasing that the righteousness of God, by which we are justified, was taught (placuit tarnen iusticiam Dei doceri, qua nos iustificemur)."61
Calvin was also aware of his discontinuity with Augustine on this point. In 1543 Calvin took up his pen in defense of the Lutheran doctrine of the bondage of the will against the Dutch Roman Catholic Albert Pighius, and his work The Bondage and Liberation of the Will came to light. Calvin's dispute about grace and free choice led him to distinguish himself from Augustine, something he was normally loath to do. Calvin argued against Pighius that Augustine supported his doctrine of grace even though Augustine differed from him on the nature of justifying righteousness. he writes, "But Augustine reckons [people to be] holy on the basis of good works, while I deny works, whatever they may be, any power for attaining righteousness; [I deny this] to the extent that they are wicked if they have this intention."69 Then Calvin adds, "I answer that now is not the place for a discussion about how men attain righteousness before God."70 Calvin realized that the nature of justifying righteousness and how people come to receive it are not the same question. Calvin knew himself to be in agreement with Augustine on the exclusive role of grace in bestowing righteousness and that he differed with Augustine over whether this righteousness was in Christ or in "good works." In the Institutes, Calvin writes,
"Even the judgment of Augustine, or at least his manner of stating it, is not to be fully received. For although he admirably strips man of all praise for righteousness and attributes it to the grace of God, nevertheless, he refers this grace to sanctification, meaning the sanctification by which we are regenerated (regeneramur) by the Spirit unto newness of life."71
Calvin recognized that, for Augustine, the "grace" of justifying righteousness is regenerative to a person's nature and thus belongs to the doctrinal category of regeneration or sanctification. Calvin, on the other hand, distinguished justification from regeneration and sanctification, and thus from any notion of intrinsic transformation.72 While Augustine and Calvin both agreed that grace is monergistic in salvation, Calvin conceived of justifying righteousness as distinct from the inherent righteousness of the Christian life, and he acknowledges this difference between them.73
ME: Considering the complex relationship between the Reformers and Augustine would make this article more historically accurate and more interesting, I think.Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusrex1545 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calvin and Augustine 

message: ...for screwing up the editing process.  
But I think the new sentences may express the historical realities of the seventeenth century (especially) more accurately.  Most Calvinists were aware that Augustine had a doctrine of merit and that this teaching was compatible with the later Thomist-Dominican views.  Semi-Pelagianism is a somewhat anachronistic term anyway, but if used in its strict sense, it usually refers to the conviction that the first grace is unmerited but that, after justification, grace is no longer needed. Basically, the human being is on her own at this point.  An Augustinian and/or Thomist view of merit is that the human being continues to depend upon God's movement upon the soul for good works even in a state of grace.  This is why Augustine says (and I paraphrase) that, when God crowns our merits, He crowns His gifts in us.  This is a passage which Aquinas himself cites in his teaching on merit.  
There may be other points which may incline the author of this article to say that Aquinas is semi-Pelagian, though I'm not sure what those may be.  But simply pointing to a doctrine of merit is insufficient since Augustine also has a teaching of condign merit.  Schaff and others said this long ago, arguing that the Tridentine teaching on condign merit is an inheritance of the Augustinian view.  
But if you look at McGrath (which I tried to cite?) from Iusitia Dei, pp. 43-44, he points this out.  Of course, I don't want to impose "original research" on this encyclopedia article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusrex1545 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I apologize... 

message: I moved a "further reading" annotated bibliography from the Arminianism article.  It did not really belong there.  I mean, there's no "supporting" and "opposing" bibliography section on the Calvinism article, is there?  However, it seemed a good fit here, so I moved it here.  It needs to be added to and wikified. 
Also, I rearranged the intro to this article so the title of the article leads.  I also moved some images around, removed some superfluous and redundant ones.  I moved some portals and templates around as well.
Also, the inline reference citations are atrociously done, and need to be fixed up.  But I haven't any time for that right now.
TuckerResearch (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added bib from [[Arminianism]], refs, etc.