This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Theology / History / Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Reformed Christianity / Arminianism / Methodism / Evangelical Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Christian history (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism. This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Arminianism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Methodism work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as Top-importance).

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)[reply]

There's a lot of information and accusations floating around on the internet, I thought it'd be good to have an impartial, historical understanding of the history behind soteriology debates.

Please feel free to add more information; what I have now is really only scratching the surface. I tried to be as impartial as I could and do not feel that the reader would walk away influenced toward any particular opinion (except possibly away from Pelagianism - and if others feel the same way, please change any offensive parts).

A few quick guidelines: - Try to mention how historical figures relate and why their views were important. This is probably more of an issue on the Calvinist side because so many historical figures come from a reformed background. - I tried to maintain a historical distinction between three different groups - Pelagians, Arminians, and Calvinists. I know from both personal experience and reading that many Calvinists refer to Pelagians and Arminians together. Stephen Ashby and David Pawson, as only two of several I've read, objects very strongly to this.

Enjoy, David Schroder 02:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I was working on a revision for the current Arminianism article (see my user page), I wrote a bunch of additional stuff that was very relevant but IMHO too long. It fit very well here, so I copied and pasted it.

As a result, the article seems currently skewed towards Arminius, the Remonstrants, and Synod of Dort. Please add more in other places to flesh it out! The sections on Luther and Calvin need some more biographical information as it relates to formation of their doctrines, and a history of all the Calvinist creeds and catechisms is also pretty important. The section on Wesley, Whitefield, and Methodism should be expanded. I'll try to get to it whenever I can, but we all know how that goes.David Schroder 04:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article stated that Erasmus' views were rejected because of his semi-Pelagian views. I added that his Humanstic view also added to his rejection by Luther's followers.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is the author saying that Charismatics are primarily Armininan or entirely? I ask this because the Charismatic churches that I know of teach an unconditional doctrine of security, which is clearly Calvinist. Can he/she please clarify?192.231.128.68 04:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once saved always saved is arminian

Regarding the statement:

"I ask this because the Charismatic churches that I know of teach an unconditional doctrine of security, which is clearly Calvinist."

This is a common misconception. Article 5 of the Articles of the Remonstrants state:

"But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind."

In other words they weren't sure if "believers" could lose their salvation. This allowed for two different versions of Arminianism. One where salvation can be lost and one where it can not (Once Saved Always Saved). Historically speaking to be a Calvinist one would have to hold to, at least, "The Canons of Dort" (which were written in response to the remonstrants), but typically a true Calvinist holds to the Three Forms of Unity. Although there are many that claim the name of Calvinst while wrenching it out of its historical context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think "charismatic" stands for a non-denominational movement within many churches. I.e. Arminianism is a theology, and charismatism stands for traits beside pure theology. Correct me if I'm wrong. Said: Rursus 14:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Once Saved, Always Saved" is clearly a Calvinist teaching (more accurately understood as "perseverance of the saints" due to the false implication that, in Calvinism, one can accept Christ yet not change his lifestyle and still receive salvation. Calvin (and his followers today) taught that a true believer will have a strong desire to follow Christ, and that desire will never be extinguished because it is sustained by God's predestining choice.)

Regarding the charismatic movement...it's not a true denomination with clearly defined theologies. You will find charismatic churches on both sides of the fence - just as some baptists are Calvinists while some are Arminian. The overall flavor, however, appears to be Arminian (Charismaticism developed from Pentacostalism, which in turn developed from Methodists, who are strong Arminians). I do not know of any study that would prove this conclusively, however.

I do know that one Charismatic group - the International House of Prayer led by Mike Bickle - has come out very strongly with an Arminian theology. The Calvary Chapel statement of faith (Calvary Chapels are non-denominational and share charismatic theology on the gifts of the spirit) is slightly ambiguous, but seems to be more Calvinist.

Hope this helps...and if anyone can improve this part of the article, go for it! David Schroder 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't understand the section. I don't understand what this has to do with the Calvinist-Arminian debate. Did the Calvinists use the Augustinus-Pelasgius controversy as a weapon, or the Arminians, or both? As I can see the Calvinists propone one kind of predestination, but is this the same as the Augustinus double predestination? The section seems to be irrelevant, but if it's worked on some more, it will certainly prove to be relevant. Said: Rursus 15:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at that section in a while, but to answer your question, Calvinists see themselves as heirs of Augustine's soteriology, and they see Arminians (among others) as closer to Pelagius's. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Augustine-Pelagius conflict served as the first occasion in church history where (1) two sides on this issue emerged as opponents, and (2) predestination was first introduced as a codified theology. Every soteriological debate since has referred back to Pelagius & Augustine, thus it's quite important from a historical context to all of the later histories (Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Wesley, etc) David Schroder 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think the section on Calvin says more about what OTHERS have said about the man, and what criticisms or justifications they have for him rather than what he ACTUALLY said. Bobius 16 Dec 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.55.128 (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me incorrect and more propaganda to suggest Augustine established his unconditional predestination system of theology as a response to Pelagius (a neutrality issue). This is found untrue by Augustine's correspondence with Jerome. Augustine began the deviation from the previous early church writers to deny freedom to the will. And it is this which led to his system. Only when this system came to light was a controversy initiated; not the other way around. So that for up to 4 centuries the universal view of the early church consisted of a conditional predestination. To this end I shall await comments and then edit some changes in this section.Jarom22 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine developed very little of the doctrines of sin, grace, and election until the Pelagian controversy elicited it. It is well known that Augustine's Confessions (c. 400) spurred Pelagius's objection, not on the count of election but on account of man's supposed inability because of sin (cf. this footnote on line 21). Pelagius took Da quod iubes, et iube quod vis ("Grant what you command, and command what you will") to mean that God might command man to do something he was unable to do, like requiring a rock to jump, whereas Augustine said man was only unable because of sin. The Pelagian controversy ensued, with Augustine writing against existing Pelagian doctrines (cf. [1] at "Meanwhile the Pelagian ideas...").

Pelagius published a commentary on the Pauline epistles containing the before 410 that "contained the fundamental ideas which the Church afterwards condemned as "Pelagian heresy,"[2] and a council at Carthage condemned his views, which had to have been already in circulation, in 412.[3] Augustine's anti-Pelagian works began only in 412 with De peccatorum meritis et remissione (On merit and forgiveness)[4] and continued through the subsequent Semipelagian controversy where he further explained his view of predestination.[5]

Hence Augustine's doctrinal developments can be found in nascent form before the Pelagian controversy, but the full-blown system was only to develop in and after it. So, in short, I think the section is far from propoganda. Rather, it is an essentially accurate statement of history. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flex, I've been away. Since all we have left of Pelagius' writings are mainly found within the writings of Augustine and Jerome, I don't hold much weight to that line of thinking (your counter argument and alleged Pelagius works in a balanced and complete form). What we do have and researchers of the early church writers concur about, is that free-will is genuine before Augustine (even with Jerome), but that Augustine made the idea of sin's nature in each person to be such a hold that though it appears free, it cannot act free. So that he diverges and wrote of that divergence before Pelagius made any objection. Since Augustine's nascent or final system is founded and began due to that divergence from past writers, it is inaccurate, incorrect and thereby not inaccurate for me to call 'propaganda' any statement which 'says': Augustine's fight against Pelagius brought him out of the closet (as it were). It is accurate to say that it made Augustine respond forcefully and that few had the background or ability to refute him effectively, but to suggest his thinking was not new in proper church circles is false.Jarom22 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have not ever said that his developments were not new (but again as an aside, I don't see novelty itself as a disqualifier for the veracity of a doctrine since many other doctrines were not worked out immediately, some even until after Augustine). Second, according to the sources cited above, we have Pelagius's commentary on Romans. Third, I don't think your account squares with objective, published historical accounts that I have read (e.g., see the sources already cited and the section "Diffusion of Pelagianism" here). I feel like I am accurately summarizing what these reliable sources say. Are you saying you think my account of their material is flawed or that their material itself is flawed? --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flex. I think you in part misunderstand me. You are also repeating old ground we have covered and agreed: I have previously concurred that (as you now put it) "novelty itself" is not "a disqualifier for the veracity of a doctrine". It does not make it true by that standard either of course. You refer to the alleged (my assertion) "Diffusion of Pelagianism" and in that, is a good example of the 'propaganda' I am referring to. As you read this point 1 that "man may be without sin and may easily keep the commands of God if he will" it is there attributed to Pelagius as if he was the beginning and source of this, whilst in reality as I have carefully previously stated we have 1st hand accounts from 17 early church writers that already claim this truth: free-will is real! It is Augustine that departs from this truth before Pelagius argues with it. And the unconditional election system nascent or otherwise in Augustine stems from that particular diversion, as Fisher clearly states: "From the sinfulness and impotency of all men, Augustine deduced the doctrine of unconditional predestination" Page 191 from "History of Christian Doctrine". It is the inability of free-will to perform due to inherent sinful nature (as per Augustine) that prevents it to act freely. In direct opposition to Jesus' claim that he needed to preach in parables to prevent the repentance of those who could not perceive their meanings because they had already chosen a life of evil: thus showing the ability to repent present (Matthew 13:13-15). As taught by the early church fathers before Augustine. That is my consistent point observable by the direct quotes of these writers. Please explain if you dispute that.Jarom22 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose thereby my answer to your last query "Are you saying you think my account of their material is flawed or that their material itself is flawed?" is that it looks (because of your reference mentioned and I quote) that their material is flawed as it contradicts the direct quotes of early church fathers. Yes, Pelagius said that, but to be silent in mentioning that 17 others did also suggests (i.e. 'propaganda') it was Pelagius that was being fought against on that point. The fact that other points were made by Pelagius that could be legitimately disputed does not help us when the package as a whole is rebuked, whilst in fact the particular point in question should have been upheld and was by many even in the West: Fisher states "The support which Augustine received in the West, as concerns the doctrines of absolute inability, irresistible grace, and unconditional predestination, was far from being unanimous" page 195.Jarom22 (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, no one is saying that Pelagius was alone in his view. The Schaff-Herzog article cited above discusses just how widespread it was -- at one point even the pope supported it. However, that view was not universal either. The reason Pelagius plays into it so much is that he was the point man, as it were, and the controversy bears his name for that reason. As I quoted Philip Schaff, church historian and editor of the standard English edition of the works of the church fathers, elsewhere: "Before Augustine the anthropology of the church was exceedingly crude and indefinite. There was a general agreement as to the apostasy and the moral accountability of man, the terrible curse of sin, and the necessity of redeeming grace; but not as to the extent of native corruption, and the relation of human freedom to divine grace in the work of regeneration and conversion."

Since you are taking issue with my reliable sources (the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Philip Schaff), I request that you cite fuller portions of your sources. (The ones I have cited are all online.) Do your sources mention that they are contradicting/correcting the common telling of this part of history? --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flex, this space (talk) is useful in that it enables us to examine these things to more accurately reflect in an article (eventually) an observation (thus neutral) of what we are looking at. However, this space also now allows me to declare my limitations as an editor (direct) in this matter. Not so much because of lack of familiarity of the medium and procedures (which is true), but because of my own calling. I am a resourcer and equipper of the saints. To this end I have researched this subject and written directly. My forthcoming book "So you think you're chosen?" (due at the legal deposit office next week) as well as my last one "Will there be Non-Christians in heaven? (a new edition) touch on the matter in hand. I can say all this here since this is talk. I am however wary and do not want to cross the line in editing directly due to this (i.e. self sourced/own authorship) . I therefore need to concentrate on my resourcing you guys more than reshaping these articles.

I will now point you to the direct words of the 17 early church writers (primarily prior to Augustine) - and thus equip you - which show that he departed from the common belief of the church in regards to free-will. This is from my own web site, but since the fuller works of each of these writers containing these portions are freely accessible online you can verify them. I mentioned 17, so here are 17 direct quotes referred to and their original source: JUSTIN MARTYR (c.100-165A.D.): Dialogue CXLi - IRENAEUS of Gaul (c.130-200): Against Heresies XXXVII - [http://www.jarom.net/athenagoras.php ATHENAGORAS of Athens (2nd century)]: Embassy for Christians XXIV - [http://www.jarom.net/theophilus.php THEOPHILUS of Antioch (2nd century)]: To Autolycus XXVII - TATIAN of Syria (flourished late 2nd century): Address XI - BARDAISAN of Syria (c.154-222): Fragments - CLEMENT of Alexandria (c.150-215): Stromata Bk ii ch. 4 and Stromata Bk iv ch. 12 - TERTULLIAN of Carthage (c.155-225): Against Marcion Book II ch.5 - NOVATIAN of Rome (c.200-258): On the Trinity ch. 1 - ORIGEN (c.185-254): De Principiis Preface and De principiis Bk 3 ch. 1 - METHODIUS of Olympus (c.260-martyred 311): The Banquet of the Ten Virgins xvi and Concerning Free-will - ARCHELAUS: The Disputation with Manes - ARNOBIUS of Sicca (c.253-327): Against the Heathen: 64 and 65 - CYRIL of Jerusalem (c. 312-386): Lecture IV 18 and 20 and 21 - GREGORY of Nyssa (c.335-395): On Virginity (368) ch. XII - JEROME (c.347-420): Letters CXXXIII - [http://www.jarom.net/john_chrysostom.php JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (347-407)]: On Hebrews, Homily 12

And thus the accurate reference to 'propaganda' is pinpointed as to the allusion that Pelagius was in error on this point and that Augustine was outlining a previously held dogma. After reading these, can you honestly say that Pelagius in his affirming this free-will from the bible diverges from the truth held in the church and not Augustine? Jarom22 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that you have admitted that you disagree with established reliable sources on this matter of history. Now, of course reliable sources can be wrong, but (1) the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth (if you aren't shocked by this, read it again), and (2) it is not the Wikipedians' job to independently bring out the errors in sources. The Wikipedia is a compendium of accepted knowledge, not original research. Thus, you must present reliable secondary sources to establish your (tiny minority, AFAICT) point of view on this subject. Your citations of primary sources cannot do this for you (cf. WP:OR#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources). --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flex. Since I have demonstrated that in the particular regard of free-will (but central to the articles issue) the previously regarded 'established reliable source' is not so and thus its 'verifiability' is shattered on this point, it can now be recognised as no longer accepted knowledge. As to reliable secondary sources and the one you referred to is now shown unreliable on this particular, please refer to Roger Forster and Paul Marston's "God's strategy in human history" and Dr George Park Fisher's "History of Christian Doctrine" that both fully concur in regards to these primary sources. You are now resourced accurately. Jarom22 (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not demonstrated from reliable secondary sources that there is a flaw in the account of the cited sources. Can you please quote your sources at greater length on this point? I don't have them at hand, and there seems to be considerable weight against them in the three sources I mentioned (Catholic Encyclopedia, Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Philip Schaff) that, unlike your sources are widely considered reliable on historical matters, cannot so easily be cast aside. This is not to say that yours aren't reliable, just that they aren't so commonly used in the WP and are of considerably lower circulation. Here's yet another source, the Christian Cyclopedia on the Pelagian controversy, that disagrees with your account:

There had been no full agreement among church fathers on justification. In general they agreed that man's nature was depraved by the Fall and that man thereafter needs God's grace and a rebirth. Some (e.g., Ambrose, Cyprian, Hilary of Poitiers, Tertullian) taught a total depravity; others (e.g., the Cappadocian Theologians, J. Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, Didymus of Alexandria) held that man retained a remnant of free will, which is active toward good independently of grace.

In his early writings, Augustine of Hippo did not exclude free will from conversion; later he excluded it emphatically....

--Flex (talk/contribs) 18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flex, you are correct, I have not quoted the secondary sources I mentioned at any great lengths. Forster and Marston in their work have directly quoted all the 17 primary sources I referred to. As a point of interest, does that make them as a secondary source valid now? Interestingly too, and more so in direct opposition to the quote you just made which stated "Tertullian . . . taught a total depravity" he (Tertullian) is directly quoted "I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God's image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature . . . you will find that when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God's calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and by this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance." (Against Marcion Book II ch.5) page 250 of "God's Strategy in Human History" Rogert T Forster & V Paul Marston published by Highland. Hardly a teaching of total depravity. Fisher in his "History of Christian Doctrine" (Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Yale University - 1896) states of Tertullian "The freedom of the will is a part of God's image and likeness in man. There is entire freedom in 'both directions' - towards the right and towards the wrong" (page 93). Is that sufficient 'demonstration from reliable secondary sources that there is a flaw in the account of the cited sources'?

Of course that is not the complete picture in regards to Tertullian and 'your' sources are 'in effect' stating things out of context: there, is the harm and inaccuracy. Fisher also says from Tertullian " 'The corruption of our nature is another nature' Yet this suggestion of an inborn corruption, in which Augustine is anticipated, is qualified and, in some places, virtually excluded" (also page 93). So that in regards to free-will unlike Augustine Tertullian maintains it. My claim of 'propaganda' is only as a highlighting term. In reality what we have is inaccurate reference to events and writings thus taken out of context which at that angle of view reflect what the secondary sources have written. Many state that as a system Augustine is the beginning. The point at issue here was that the root or foundation of that system was not universally recognised or accepted and thus Augustine diverges from the church and does not expound or defend what was pre-existing. Fisher is clear that "in harmony with the foregoing views as to human freedom and responsibility, conditional predestination is the doctrine inculcated [persistently taught] by the Greek Fathers" (page 165). Augustine did not therefore clarify or expound what was there already - that is false - but instead furiously defended what he came to believe in: that free-will no longer existed as effective due to absolute corruption due to original sin. Hence his belief and assertion of the need for infant baptism. Is that enough detail? Jarom22 (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about you. I have some real world concerns at the moment, but I'm doing some research and will get back to you soon. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

THOMAS AQUINAS

Unigenitus is a very problematic document (see Henri de Lubac's Augustinianism and Modern Theology) Calling Thomas Aquinas a semi-Pelagian is really crazy. Augustine (even very, very late!) had a doctrine of merit. So, if simply having a doctrine makes you a semi-Pelagian, Augustine becomes a semi-Pelagian, which is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.155.6 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Indeed, the De Auxiliis controversy (for a brief, somewhat outdated picture, biased slightly towards the Molinists, see Catholic Encyclopedia) is much more important for contextualizing the later debate than even Luther vs. Erasmus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusrex1545 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]