Talk:Synergism

POV

VERY one-sided. 151.185.60.250 (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Theological POV

I agree with the above poster. I've flagged this article for NPOV checking. The issues are, as I can see them:

• Too much emphasis on Calvinist critique of Arminian theology, with no information about how the Arminians view the critiqued ideas
• No emphasis at all on the "important part" synergy plays in Eastern Orthodox theology, despite having a sentence about it

Could most of this article be merged into another article on Calvinism? 64.80.108.55 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made a first attempt to remedy the second of the above complaints. I disagree with the other, since the Arminian (and Wesleyan) view is given more space than the Calvinist critique of it. Esoglou (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing Horton source

Hi @Telikalive: Wondering if it would be okay to restore a more precise location for the quote from: Horton, Michael (2011). The Christian Faith. I purposely found and added the free-to-read link because I was interested to see the context of the quote. Other readers might be too. Originally the quote was cited as "{{sfn}}Horton|2011|loc=Ch. The dogma is the Drama", but I could not find the quote in that chapter, which runs from approx. pp. 2–32 (or by Internet Archive count pp. 9–39]). I found it much further on.

Because this online edition I linked to is unpaginated (i.e. no page numbers appear on the work itself), I added both the overarching chapter title (in the reference list) and chapter section name within the cite itself. It's usually considered best practice to use locators other than page numbers in these situations. Linking to the precise point in the source is good practice too. My cite followed Template:Sfn § Additional comments or quotes and Adding a URL for the page or location. Currently there's no link included in the article directly to the quoted material (and the use of |ps=. for inclusions of quotes is deprecated – or at least that's my understanding from Template:Sfn, which may be wrong!) It's not compulsory, of course, but could be handy. What do you think? AukusRuckus (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi AukusRuckus I restored your way of doing though I don't like it. In your way of doing there is one url in sfn, and one url in the sources chapter. In my version there is only one url in the sources chapter. I prefer it for the purpose of maintainability. If the url changes, it changes only in one point. ---Telikalive (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Lutheran theology

Hello Electro99, I’ve removed all primary sources—both mine and yours—for the sake of clarity. I have no issue with the viewpoint that Luther did not affirm reprobation, alongside the view that he affirmed both reprobation and election. You just need to find a secondary source, as I did, that explicitly supports the "election only" position or acknowledges that both interpretations exist. ---Telikalive (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue with primary sources. Primary sources are a much better way to determine what a person believed than secondary sources written centuries later. Just because a book is published doesn't mean it's accurate.

I still find it irrelevant to include Phillip Melanchton's view on synergism. Though he was an important figure in the Lutheran reformation, he's a single person whose individual beliefs are not representative of Lutheran theology. This seems to be the only section, aside from Arminianism, where you state beliefs of specific individuals within a tradition as opposed to the tradition as a whole. In the Roman Catholic section, you don't mention Aquinas' views (that their church later moved away from). And in the Reformed section, you don't even mention Calvin's view of monergism and predestination. Electro99 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Electro99 According to Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:PSTS), we are required to prioritize secondary sources. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." I believe this is a particularly appropriate recommendation for discussing Luther’s theology. I personnaly see a lot of potential issues about that contrary to you, but your contributions are most welcome.

Philip Melanchthon is certainly notable enough to be mentioned in an article on synergism, as his position represents a significant exception within Lutheranism. There are many similar exceptions, and Melanchthon is a prime example of such diversity. When the article is further expanded, the details (people, movements) may be refined, but the topic of synergism within Lutheranism should remain part of the discussion.

I encourage you to contribute by expanding the article and adding secondary sources, especially regarding the current theological orientation of Lutherans today. ---Telikalive (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Telikalive, I did provide a secondary source - the article by Block, which has been kept, so I think the section is decent as it stands now.

If you insist that Melanchthon is notable enough for his view to be mentioned, then you should at least be consistent and mention the views of notable figures for the other traditions, such as Calvin for the Reformed, Aquinas for Roman Catholics.

The current theological orientation of Lutherans today is what the Book of Concord teaches. It is irrelevant if an individual that self-identifies as Lutheran holds a view that dissents from the Book of Concord. Unlike other traditions like Roman Catholicism, Reformed, etc., Lutheran doctrine doesn't change over time. Electro99 (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Electro99 The secondary source you provided is inadequate, as it does not explicitly state that Luther affirmed only election without reprobation, nor does it indicate, as mentioned before, that there are conflicting scholarly interpretations regarding Luther's views.

You mentioned the consistency of the article. Keep in mind that the consistency of a Wikipedia article is the result of consensus among all contributors (see WP:CON). Therefore, you have my full support to include Calvin for the Reformed and Aquinas for Roman Catholics, but I do not approve of removing Melanchthon. ---Telikalive (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Telikalive From Block article:

"Calvin himself writes, “We assert that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined both whom he would admit to salvation and whom he would condemn to destruction” ( Institutes 3.21.7).

Such a doctrine is abhorrent to Lutherans. And, indeed, contemplation of such a doctrine was abhorrent also to Luther. In his Lectures on Genesis , given in the last decade of his life, Luther speaks at length on the subject of predestination once more..." Electro99 (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Electro99 I believe we've discussed this thoroughly. Now, please provide explicit secondary sources on the topics mentioned above. While it's not mandatory, including a quote to emphasize key points would be helpful.---Telikalive (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)