Wesley/Cross
Instead of John Wesley, you might consider using the Methodist cross. —thames 13:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That cross is the official symbol of the United Methodist Church, but is not representative of other Wesleyan groups, such as the AME Church or the British Methodists or the Holiness groups. John Wesley's image seemed a little more universal to me. KHM03 14:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why is the Arminian article part of a series on Methodism? Arminianism is no more an integral part of Methodism than it is an integral part of the Baptists, Charismaticism, or any other myriad denominational divisions. Furthermore, one of Methodism's fathers, Whitefield, was a staunch Calvinist... --patton1138 20:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Arminianism was crucial in the development of Methodist theology. With the exception of the Welsh Methodists (who descend from Whitefield), Methodism is an Arminian theological system...albeit modified somewhat by Anglican, Pietist & Eastern Orthodox influences. Arminianism is absolutely crucial to Methodist/Wesleyan theology, and, historically, Wesley & the Methodists are the world's best known Arminians. KHM03 20:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that. The problem I have is that by tacking the Methodism template onto the article on Arminianism, it creates a sense that Arminianism is somehow restricted to Methodism. In the same way that tacking a 'Catholic template' to an article on Jesus might mislead unaware readers. --patton1138 17:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point, but I would argue that Methodism has been historically the "most significant" champion of Arminianism. It was John Wesley who modified it to make it more a doctrinal system and less a reaction to what I might call the "proto-hyperCalvinism" of Dort. It has been Methodism for the past few centuries who kept Arminianism at the forefront of theological rationale (particularly in America) and which resulted (ultimately) in the modern evangelical movement (as well as Pentecostalism & Charismaticism). I would argue that the template belongs on the Arminianism artilce. One man's opinion! Not that Arminianism is limited to Methodists; far from it...most American Christians are Arminian, I believe...whether they realize it or not. Calvinism isn't limited to Presbyterians...there are Baptist Calvinists as well (though I suspect most aren't too big on it, since Calvin was a strong proponent of infant baptism). I think the template belongs on the Arminian page. One man's opinion! KHM03 12:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please review this template and it's effects on various layouts. I attempted a layout correction on Matthew Simpson, (Matthew Simpson before edit) however the result is unsatisfactory. This infobox wants to be at the top of page. Please rework so that Biography infoboxes can be used in conjuction also.SauliH 08:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's huge! has anyone thought of redesigning it? -- Secisek (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey there, I have noticed the layout problems in the article about William Clyde Martin, I have replaced class="toccolours" with class="infobox" in the template code and it works satisfactory in that article. When this template is put underneath the infobox person, it sorts itself well into the second position, as it should be. I hope that layout issues in other aricles are fixed this way, too. In case there are problems that I did not identify, please leave a note on this talk page or on my user talk page and revert my edits, if it causes a big problem in some article. Thank you, doxTxob \ talk 21:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That short article (labeled Start-class instead of a stub, somehow) begins, "Neil Thomas Ministries (NTM) is a non-profit, Christian organization whose doctrine is heavily based on Methodism..." I'm not sure if it should be added to this template, so I'll leave this here and leave it up to you. :)
If you do add it, you might also want to add this template to that article. Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
