User talk:Flex/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sorry Flex it is me C.hunter. I thought I was logged in. I was fixing all the links you told me to. Can you tell me what links you deleted? If you want just email me. [email protected] . I am still new to the wikipedia thing and I am having difficulty communicating via post on here? Sorry. bare with me, I will get there. (feel free to delete this after you read it so it doesn't take up space)

Perhaps I'm totally Wiki-ignorant, but how does an anonymous user have the power to protect a page? I don't have that button.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 03:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Unknown. The page is gone now in any case. --Flex 12:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened to KHM03? He is listed as officially Retired, with last archiving done on Apr. 18. Sorry to see a good brother leave the Wiki. If you know anything, leave a comment on my page. jrcagle 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in helping when it comes up on your to-do list. --jrcagle 01:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but feel free to take a shot at it yourself. I'm more likely to write the article on the Christian View of Alcohol first. I haven't created any new articles lately due to having a new baby. --Flex 12:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. And congratulations on the baby! We have an 8-mo.-old and a 2-year-old, so I can appreciate only having sporadic time to put into Wiki. Anyway, emboldened by something or other, and seeing that justification was on your list, I did a radical whacking of the justification article. Would you mind taking a look at it?

Thanks, jrcagle 04:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:24.104.22.1 is vandalizing again. Can you put a stop to it? --Flex 18:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Next time, report them to WP:AIV. DVD+ R/W 18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

by User:Flȩx (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). — May. 26, '06 [06:44] <freak|talk>

Are you sure about him being a Baptist? It's not mentioned in the article. Deb 16:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there... Why did you remove the link to 5solas.org from the Hyper-Calvinism article? This is one of few comprehensive hyper-calvinistic sites there are, I don't see how it would be dubious, as you said. Jack Daw 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no indication as to how it was related, and I didn't bother following the link to check since it wasn't even in proper wikistyle. It needs to be noted how it relates to the article (e.g., is it pro, con, or neutral; is it a collection of articles or a denomination or church's website. If it's pro, do they accept the label hyper-Calvinism? Probably not. Then who applies it to them?) etc. etc. --Flex 16:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it's definitely pro, and I guess you could say it's a collection of articles. Accepting the label, the site owner call himself a supralapsarian Calvinist on the forum, while having written articles such as "Hyper-Calvinism is the truth!" and "Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist". So I definitely think it's related to the article and provides further information. How would You label the link based on the info I've given? Jack Daw 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Flex, thanks for asking me to review these reversions. This sentence is problematic:

Most of today's Protestants understand justification by faith alone differently than he did. For example, Luther put faith only in the external promise of the gospel made by word and sacrament, whereas heirs of the Zwingli-Calvin Reformation instead look in varying degrees for additional evidence of the Spirit's work.

I think that this sentence should be taken out because Reformed Theology, which is the modern day heir of the Zwingli-Calvin tradition understands the doctrine of Justification in virtually the same way as the Lutheran tradition. This sentence points out a difference in the doctrine of the "means of grace" rather than the definition of Justification itself. If you don't mind, I will edit this page myself. It could be tweaked a little in wording. Thank you again for bringing me in to consider this page.--Drboisclair 17:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see my edits of this page, and see if it is OK. I think that there is largely consensus among Lutheran and Reformed theologians on these 5 solas.--Drboisclair 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my understanding, too. You'll see that I made a change in description to an external link that the previous hyper-Lutheran editor added. --Flex 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a few more sentences that get to what the reformers were trying to push with sola gratia and sola fide. It is to be noted that sola scriptura is an ablative not a nominative indicating that scripture is a means by which God comes to the sinner rather than something that stands by itself as it would be if sola scriptura were nominative. The Latin is ambiguous: sola scriptura can be either nominative or ablative as written.--Drboisclair 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You took the words straight out of my mouth! - the citation from W.Y.Fullerton regarding David Livingstone's copy of a Spurgeon sermon. An interesting anecdote, too. – Agendum 09:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings; I left a question here based on one of your recent discussions re: categories. It's an open question, but perhaps you could share some insight. Thanks!--Anthony Krupp 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flex, Just wanted to make sure that you got my message on my Talk Page? Thanks, Goodnews1 22:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Turretin pages. DFH 08:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a request for immediate help from Kmaguir1 07:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC). If you have time, I'd like you to examine the Bell Hooks article and talk page. It's a scholarly article about a controversial writer, someone who drew the ire of a conservative commentator. They wanted me to go get the quote from her book, and I did that. But now, they're arguing it's not notable. As a follower of Wikipedia, you will know that of all the meaningless academic trivia included on her page, that what they wanted to exclude was really ridiculous: that she says as an opening to her book, Killing Rage, "I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder". This may in itself be notable, but David Horowitz wrote about it in 100 Dangerous Professors, and it was written about on front page mag, and all the citations are given on the page. I would appreciate your help--I'm contending with some very difficult Marxists who are attached to her work, and think that they're defending the liberal cause, but really, they're just keeping out material that is very easily notable.-Kmaguir1 07:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. In the interest of disclosure, I'd like to inform you of a conduct RfC on Kmaguir1. It's here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. If you have time and are so inclined, feel free to provide comments there. Meanwhile, if you go to the bell hooks page, please do join in the discussion. If you read the Talk page and look at my and others' edit histories, you'll see that the picture is not quite as Kmaguir1 paints it. (I have no idea who the Marxists are he's referring to, and I've also edited his text for improvement, and left it in the article, vs. what he's saying here.)

Bottom line: welcome to bell hooks, be aware of the RfC, and feel free to join it. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I copied this from my own talk page, -Yakuman

Dabney

Hi, Yakuman. I had deleted the link you added to R. L. Dabney's Defense of Virginia not because I wanted to hide his politics but because on a quick glance, it didn't seem like there was anything but bibliographic information at that link. So that readers don't make the same mistake, I have put a more direct link in its place. I also deleted the other link from UTexas because it adds nothing that is not already mentioned in the article (cf. #1 under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided), and I removed the stub tag because, while the article could be expanded by a knowledgable editor, it would be difficult for someone else to do so (cf. WP:STUB). --Flex 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The stub tag needs to go back. Is theological learning so bad that no one can do a decent write-up on him? I mean, besides someone calling him an evil dead male cracker racist sexist homophobe. Yakuman 18:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not whitewash pages which contain criticism that you do not like. — Dunc|☺ 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhh what? You seem to mistake my application of the Wikipedia policies on living persons and external links in my changes to Columbia Evangelical Seminary and my changes to James White for whitewashing. The former says (emphasis in original):

Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

I take that to mean that this link, which appeared as a reference in both pages and does not appear to be a reliable source (see esp. WP:RS#In_biographies_of_living_persons), should be removed along with the criticism that it is the foundation for. The article on Columbia Evangelical Seminary is not a biography article, but the paragraph that I deleted was poorly sourced biographical criticism about the founder and falls under the same restrictions. Do you disagree? (Because of the "immediately" in that policy, I un-reverted those articles until we come to a conclusion.) --Flex 13:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate your comment to what I added at the bottom of this section at the Francis Schaeffer Discussion Page where I address you and Parableman personally. Thank you :-)--Awinger48 21:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll look soon. No time right now. BTW, good work on improving the Schaeffer article. --Flex 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean to revert the Atonement article? Your edit summary and label as minor edit did not reflect what you actually did. I reverted the article back to the way it was before. --S Roper 16:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I was reverting the handiwork of a troublemaker on various articles. I apparently picked the wrong version to revert to. Sorry! --Flex 13:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Flex. I just registered as MessyJ, so that's how I'm known now. I'm not an expert by any means on Lordship Salvation, but it interests me greatly. I enjoy John MacArthur's teachings, and he puts an emphasis on Lordship Salvation. I am a dispensationalist (thus my knowledge about Ryrie), and hold to a free grace viewpoint, although as I probably indicated in my post, I try to take a more neutral stance on this topic in particular. I do believe that scripture is clear that believers will produce fruits. However, as Dr. Ryrie, I hold to this position while also maintaining a free grace stance. I know that many Lordship Salvation proponents consider this a conflict of ideas, but I don't. I love to talk about this stuff, and would love to entertain some more particular questions about my own views, as well as hear some of your own.

Messy J 21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Flex,

My username is Aquatiki and I am curious how you can be so knowledgable about Presuppositional Apologetics and Calvinism yet subscribe to the NPOV here on Wikipedia. Please reply here or on my talk page or email me: mrandmrsmurphy @t gmail d0t com. I have started my own wiki and am interested in your opinion either way. Aquatiki 03:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not interested. --Flex 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Since I expressed an interest in your opinion yea or nay, does "Not interested" mean "I don't think you're worth my opinion."? A few sentencse are fine, but two words is just rude. Perhaps I had better state my question more academically: do you not find that Presuppositionalism (or even Calvinistic Christianity in general) precludes acceptence of the NPOV from a epistomological standpoint? Or are you not a subscriber of Christianity, merely knowledgable about it? I provided my email address if you aren't confortable discussing this here. I regret having to be so antagonistic, but I feel that you rebuffed me in a way not in accord with Christian priniciples.John 13:34-35 Aquatiki 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

All I intended to say was that I don't have the time or interest to get into a debate on this topic, which I guessed was what would have ensued based on your "antagonism." You might be interested in this discussion, however. --Flex 12:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered reply. Aquatiki 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Covenant College. --Flex 20:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)