User talk:KHM03/Archive 1

This is ARCHIVE 1 for my talk page....

Feb 05 through Aug 05.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, KHM03/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 01:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Governmental view of the atonement

Hi, KHM03, I read some of the links under Atonement (Governmental view) and tried to incorporate some more explanation into the text. Perhaps you can correct or expand it as necessary, since you're probably more familiar with it than I. In particular, I'd like to see a brief explanation of the name "governmental" and more detail on the necessity and effect of Christ's death (perhaps starting around the sentence "Instead, God publicly demonstrated..."). Cheers! --Flex 19:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

It's great to be appreciated, I stumbled on the page whilst correcting a link to Kinosis (sic). Christian Theology is the one subject I know something about, so I try to be helpful. --Doc Glasgow 17:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Holiness movement

Thanks for your additions and improvements to Holiness movement. Good work! Logophile 22:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:AlienNation

Unfortunately, vandalism is quite common on wikipedia. Luckily, the sophomoric vandals such as AlienNation quickly tire of potty humor and move on to other endeavors. For more persistent vandals, we usually impose blocks, see Wikipedia:Blocking policy. In the meantime, you can help out by removing vandalism like that wherever you see it. Cheers DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:01, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Methodist theologians

I see you started a new category with John Wesley. FWIW I always thought Charles was a better theologian than John. He made it understandable... Pollinator 18:34, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Phoebe Palmer

Thanks for adding the picture of Phoebe Palmer. I still haven't figured out how to do that. Her article is one of my pet articles, and I would like to see it become great. I've noticed your work and really like it. If you have time to help polish this article or make suggestions for me to, I'd be glad. Logophile 20:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stole

Good catch on the stole article. I almost always remember to put "as well as many other Christian denominations" or "Many liturgical Christian denominations also..." when I make a change that is not particularly Catholic specific, but I missed that one. Particularly impressed that you caught it within twenty minutes. Good work! Essjay 11:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto on Hallelujah...I feel like I have "ecumenism-check." Keep up the good work! Essjay

I nominate you for the Strides in Ecumenism Award! You deserve a big gold star and a plenary indulgence! Your welcome to "ecumenalize" my edits anytime! Essjay

User:203.36.44.14

I have blocked him for 24 hours. If he vandalizes any further after that, the block will last for a week. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:28, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

I'll let you know if I need any help, but a co-worker encouraged me to register and is helping some too. Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 20:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allies (comics)

Hi. Noticed you had just joined up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and wanted to say welcome, and also point you to Allies (comics) which is currently listed for deletion. I noticed you had an interest in golden age comics, and we think this is a page about The Young Allies, who appeared in All Star Comics, I believe. Anyway, if you have any thoughts or comments, please feel free to make them at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Allies (comics). Steve block 23:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my proposal

Hi,

I just announced I am stepping away from the proposal discussion for several days. I know I have polarized the discussion, which I didn't want to do. If you are willing, I hope you will visit the page periodically and do whatever you can or think is appropriate to facilitate discussion between both sides.

Thanks

Steve

Christianity

Thanks for noticing - I am more lucky than fast - though - I just happened to refresh my watchlist and see the anon edit and like always check it and I happened to have read the last one before the anon earlier today - I really should see if he did anymore damage - but it is such a pain to revert by finding the correct version in the history. Trödel|talk 17:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey:

I saw your note on my talk page, and I appreciate it. Until yesterday, I hadn't had anyone bite my head off over anything, and it was really unsettling. I'm still not sure what I'm going to do, but I am glad to know there are nice people like you out there. You deserve a second big gold star and another plenary indulgence. Essjay 08:56, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hyper-Calvinism

Thanks for your comments and insight. You are correct that Hyper-Calvinism (while always a small minority view) has not been relegated to the past. It can still be found in a few small pockets or congregations in England and here in the U. S. I will try to include comments to that effect in the coming days -- if you choose not to do so yourself. If you have a specific internet link to existing Hyper views, let me know or add it in your own revision.

My only motive in re-writing the Hyper-Calvinism entry was to clarify that there is a specific, historical definition of hyper-Calvinism which is tied to the English Particular Baptist controversy in the 1700's. Today's usage of the term is most often in the broader non-technical sense, amounting to name-calling, which I feel is inaccurate at best.

It seems as if anyone to the right of one’s own theological position is fair game to be labeled a hyper-Calvinist. For example, Arminians regard four-point Calvinists as hyper-Calvinists because they hold to unconditional election. The four-point Calvinist views the five-point Calvinist as “hyper” because he holds to a limited atonement. We also find five-point infralapsarians referring to five-point supralapsarians as hyper-Calvinists because of their view of the relationship between the fall of man and God’s predestination of the elect. It's almost comical. :-) Regards, Jim Ellis 14:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theology and NPOV

Thanks again. My goal is to present a Neutral Point of View and report the facts as best I can. However, in discussing theology it is often difficult to avoid evidence of bias. I would be glad to have an Arminian friend in Wikipedia to challenge me when needed. Jim Ellis 14:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I very much appreciate your personal comment. As to what acts reflect Christianity, I do have enough Christian friends to know how a real one acts, which I always appreciate and respect, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stoles in the UMC

Since the UMC has changed the definition of a deacons/elders/perm. deacons/diaconals, etc, does a deacon still wear his stole diagonally? I'm trying to think of the deacons I know and I can't see one in my mind wearing a stole... The only firm image of a diagonal stole is Robert Fijis(sp?) from Broadway UMC in Paducah when he was a diaconal minister (rather than a deacon of some sort now). --Chiacomo 06:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Succession

Thanks for the question. My answer was pretty long, so I put it on a subpage of my userpage. You can find it here. I hope it helps.

Essjay 04:12, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

There are a couple of documents from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) I thought you might be interested in:

Methodist-Catholic Dialogues: Thirty Years of Mission and Witness

Agreed Report on the Local/Universal Church: Anglican-Roman Catholic Consultation in the United States of America

Also, this link is to a list of official Roman Catholic Ecumenical dialogues from the USCCB's Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs:

Official Dialogues and Other Relationships

Hope you'll find them useful! Essjay 08:03, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I shared your question and my answer with a friend of mine, and he seemed to think that I might have been a bit too legalistic in my answer, and that you might not have actually gotten an answer to what you wanted to know. Let me know if you still have questions. Essjay 01:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

World Council of Churches

Not sure if you are interested, but some contention on above article. I try for NPOV WCC is subject to some contention. See the discussion Talk:World Council of Churches for background. Paul foord 11:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Promised

You know, I promised you the "Strides in Ecumenism Award," a big gold star, and a plenary indulgence, and I haven't followed through. So, here they are:

Congrats and good work! Essjay 11:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

You have no idea how much it made me smile to see that you put my "awards" on your User page. All I can say is "From the One Who Was, Who Is, and Who Is to Come: Grace, light, and peace be with you always." (It's a Catholic thing...) Essjay 12:52, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Methodist Apostolocity

"The grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always."

When I first saw the link you provided, I thought it said "Methodist Apostacy" not "Apostolocity"...I thought "Oh God, what has the Vatican said now???"

Anyhow, I didn't read the article all the way through (but rest assured, I will get to it!) I just wanted to comment on your "side" comment: "though you would likely disagree with it." I want to make sure you realize that I'm not actually Catholic; my interest in the church is academic and aesthetic. Sure, I've spent my life studying the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean I agree with it! My personal theology is very liberal; I'm Disciples of Christ, and I'm on the extreme liberal side of the DOC. (So that makes me extreme left of the extreme left, I guess...)

On the issue at hand, I don't disagree at all that the Methodist Church has whatever form of apostolic succession it claims to have! As long as they (you) have proof to back it up, like the "geneology" provided on the site you linked to, I believe it; if the MC decided to claim "all our clergy have been personally ordained by the Roman Catholic Pope, the Orthodox Patriarch, and the Emperor of Neptune" then I might disagree! If anything, I disagree that apostolic succession is necessary (or more accurately, that some individuals have it while others don't). In my extremist view, I disagree with anything that limits God, i.e. God can only work through a specific group of people with the proper credentials. For Heaven's sake, Jesus picked fishermen, tax collectors, and the chief persecutor of Christians to be apostles! Talk about credentials!

I just wanted to make sure that was clear; I know about them, but I'm not one of 'em! The answers I give to "what does the Church teach" questions are always what the Church teaches, not what I believe. (Oddly, I've never been asked "What do you think?") I act as a sort of "devil's advocate" so-to-speak. So, my answer to your question was "Catholic by proxy;" I was just saying what they would have said, although they might have said it in Latin...

Anyhow, I'm prepping my research on the "five solas" controversy, and will post a response there as soon as I make sure I know what I'm talking about (I'd hate to have missed an ex cathedra pronouncement somewhere along the line!) Peace be with you! Essjay (talk) 23:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've answered on "five solas." Give it the once-over. By the way, thanks for the "good catch" on Alleluia; maybe I should award myself the "Strides in Ecumenism Award!" PAX VOBISCUM! Essjay (talk) 01:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Apostolic Council and Council of Jerusalem

These pages sure could use some help, perhaps you're interested?

Question

KHM03 (can I call you KHM?) I've noticed a trend, and I have to ask you this question: Are you stealing ideas for your user page from me? Because, if you are, all I have to say is this: GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST! I've finally become notable enough to be stolen from! YIPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEE! (If you aren't, well, then, I'll just be in the corner over there crying...) Essjay (talk) 11:50, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm so glad to hear it! Steal away! (I do it all the time...In fact, the post above yours was a reply from someone I'd stolen from!) Essjay (talk) 02:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I ran across a new neat little tool. I've added it to my page, and I thought you might like it too: It's a template that automatically links to Kate's tool with your username, so that you get an automatic count of your edits. Try it out! The template renders as: Edit count for KHM03. Essjay (talk) 08:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Hey KHM, wellcome back from your Holiday! I just noticed a request on Talk:Indulgence for the views of other Christians, and I immediately thought of you, the master ecumenist! Could you give Indulgence a look?

And again, WELCOME BACK, WE MISSED YOU! -- Essjay · Talk 03:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Also, would you check out the criticism section of Roman Catholic Church? I did a requested rewrite, but I'd like the view of someone who doesn't get paid to support the Church. -- Essjay · Talk 04:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Prevenient Grace

Hi, KHM. Is there a reason that Prevenient Grace is captialized (unlike, say, Irresistible grace)? If not, I'd suggest lower-casing the 'g'.

BTW, Are you from the Pittsburgh area? --Flex 02:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you have a second, can you evaluate the accuracy of my edits in prevenient grace and total depravity vis-a-vis Methodism? My edits in the latter were revised with the comment, "Methodists do not differ so radically from the Arminian position, as these sentences affirm they do. Revising accordingly." Thanks! --Flex 13:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hoping to get this on your to-do list. :-) If you don't have time, that's fine. --Flex June 28, 2005 20:09 (UTC)

I asked Jim Ellis to give his two cents on total depravity, and he asked a question at Talk:Total depravity#Inability seems to be the issue to me that you can probably handle better than I. --Flex July 1, 2005 17:23 (UTC)

Keith, I hope you take my edits to prevenient grace and imparted righteousness in the spirit I intended. My goal is to be forthright and helpful to the articles. My latest cut in "imparted righteousness" should be more palatable. BTW, it is not necessarily a concept I disagree with. :-) Along that line, I am thinking that a section in the Righteousness article to address imputed, imparted, and infused all together would be helpful, but I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge. Hope you are having a great vacation. Jim Ellis 15:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hey KHM, welcome back, again!

My take on the RCC article is this: I revised most of the criticism section; I didn't really do a lot, as far as I'm concerned, besides shorten it up and try to make it more concise. My personal criticisms of the church fall in the "contemporary criticisms" section, and I feel like it does a fair job of mentioning them. The other areas, I don't know about. I asked for input from people who actually hold the views, and got slapped with "you just want to make it Catholic Criticism run amok."

One user asked for a review of the anti-Semitism section, so I expanded it to give a better idea of the Church's position; I feel like it really should be cut down. However, for the most part, I am at a loss, and inclined to throw up my hands and refuse to work on it under my "no controversey" policy. I feel like if I make it any more apologetic, I'll take fire from the critics, and if I make it any more critical, I'll take fire from the Catholics. I'm in the strange position of being one of the few people who really has an NPOV (I see the Church academically, not as a critic or supporter).

I'm under a bit of an attack by Lima for I don't know what. Truthfully, I think if he has problems with the article, he should just make the changes. He strikes me as an uber-apologist, so I doubt I can ever really make him happy. For now, I'm just going to stay away from the article. -- Essjay · Talk 17:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; it's always nice to hear good things. -- Essjay · Talk 04:36, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a "christian" web group?

Is there? I'm looking maybe we can collaborate on some projects. I've started a stub on Brother Andrew, but I don't own his biography, 'Life Force" and I'm looking for sommeone whi does to help expand. Borisblue 4 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Template:Eucharist

Hey K: (I know, the rhyming...)

I checked out Template:Eucharist, and I think it looks good. Is there a place where discussion is already taking place, or has the discussion not begun yet? (The talk page is a redlink.) Good work! -- Essjay · Talk July 6, 2005 00:02 (UTC)

Edits in Christianity

I couldn't stand that paragraph the way it was. So I made a "bold" move as I have been encouraged to do. :-) Your subsequent edits are welcome. It didn't throw me off at all. Regards, Jim Ellis July 6, 2005 13:09 (UTC)

Orthodoxy stub

Got your message; sorry about the overenthusiasm. JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Orthodoxy & Methodism

If you don't know it already, you might be interested in the book Orthodox and Wesleyan Spirituality, edited by S T Kimbrough, Jr, Associate General Secretary of the General Board of Global Ministries of The United Methodist Church. JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

You're welcome! JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

Reprobation

KHM03, I wish you would give me a first name to call you, I feel we're getting to the "first name basis" stage of our relationship. :-) It would seem odd to address you as saint KHM03.

Regarding Reprobation, I hoped you would appreciate the bluntness of Boettner's summary, I know it flies in the face of Arminianism. It should be easy to snipe at because he doesn't pull any punches. I know many Calvinists who wince at the doctrine and try to soft pedal it -- preferring to say that God positively chose some while leaving the others to their just deserts, and we should not look at the flip side as an active reprobation to condemnation. Boettner says, rightly, that by choosing only some to salvation, God logically, by definition, chose the remainder for condemnation. It is interesting to note that the doctrine of Reprobation is the very point that drove the Remonstrants (according to scholarly sources).

Your Wikipedian friend (in spite of theological differences), Jim Ellis July 6, 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Dear St. Keith, I find the quote by Grider quite acceptable. While I remain predominately Calvinistic in my personal theology, I do not think one must believe in the "five points' to be a genuine Christian saved by grace. If a person has faith in the Christ of the Bible and is trusting in Him alone for life and eternal salvation, I consider that person a fellow Christian. As Charles Spurgeon once said, "I do not ask whether you believe Calvinism. It is possible that you do not. But I believe you will before you enter heaven. I am persuaded that as God may have washed your hearts, He will wash your brains before you enter heaven." (Sermons, Vol. 1, p. 92). Regards, Jim Ellis July 7, 2005 00:24 (UTC)

Wierdness

Hey K: Sorry to bother you (I bet I'm in the top 5 contributors to your talk page) but I was wondering if you'd do me a favor. I got a rather wierd message today from a newbie I've been helping out, and frankly, it's a bit out of my field. Since you've been here longer, I was wondering if you'd take a look at it and tell me what you think. Honestly, I think he may be somewhat "disturbed." If you don't mind, would you leave your thoughts here instead of on my talk page, so I don't have to worry about him seeing them? Thanks! -- Essjay · Talk July 8, 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Thanks, I need it. Dominus tecum, Pax tecum. -- Essjay · Talk

Rosary

Thanks for the link on the rosary; I use mine, but do:

Gloria on the Cross, Sanctus on large beads (in place of Our Father) Agnus Dei on small beads (in place of Hail Mary) Keep the Gloria Patri And the Gloria again at the end instead of the Hail Holy Queen.

I picked those because they're my favorite prayers (and what gets better than "Glory to God in the Highest"?). -- Essjay · Talk 04:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Pew Forum: Myths of the Modern Mega-Church

Monday, May 23, 2005, Key West, Florida

This prob of interest [1]

Speaker: Rick Warren, Senior Pastor and Founder, Saddleback Church, Orange County, California

Respondent: David Brooks, Columnist, The New York Times Paul foord 13:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amin123's latest additions to Christianity and World Religions

I think they should be removed, as I outline in Talk: What do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrianism and History of Christianity

I've changed my position on this... - Ta bu shi da yu 14:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open Communion

Hey, K, long time no see; I've been busy with the RfA and RC patrol lately. (Speaking of RfA's, would you be interested in being an Admin?)

Anywho, I've finally gotten around to overhauling Open Communion; since you were a previous contributor, would you mind to take a look over there and see if I've made any glaring errors? (And if you're interested, I also did an overhaul at Disciples of Christ.) Thanks! -- Essjay · Talk 08:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks K, and if you ever want the sacred mop, let me know and I'll be happy to nominate you. I've noticed that lately I've become less of a contributor to theology articles and more of a pseudo-admin; I guess this was just the natural progression. Anyhow, thanks for your comments on the article and your vote in support. -- Essjay · Talk 21:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. As it stands now, (65-1-1) I think I may scrape by. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 00:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Prima scriptura

I'll be there shortly. -- Essjay · Talk 23:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Infant Communion

Yes, it reads very POV to me. Honestly, I don't think it's about infant communion at all; it reads like a criticism of the author's local priest's position on communion for the mentally retarded. Frankly, I think most of it should be rewritten, but considering that the author has been so vehement on the talk page, I'm not going near it. Really, a VfD might not be out of line; the topic of infant communion deserves an article, I'm just not sure it's this one. -- Essjay · Talk 20:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Having re-read the article, I have a few suggestions. First, I think the mental retardation section needs to go entirely. If Sophroniscus wants an article about communion for the mentally disabled, I suggest Communion for the Disabled, which could discuss everything from refusing the Eucharist to the mentally retarded to having Extraordinary Ministers take the Eucharist to the homebound.

Second, as I said before, the article has serious POV problems. I've put together my proposed revision in one of my sandboxes; it's basically a rewrite of the existing material, and I'm going to check the sources on it (should be done shortly). Although I don't usually get into content disputes, I'm willing to bring the issue up on the talk page and propose my revision; perhaps my credentials will make Sophroniscus think twice about inserting POV. I think it should be stated clearly that the article is unacceptable as it is now (16:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)) and that if there is opposition to removing the POV material (particularly the information on mental retardation) then an RfC should be filed. I'm willing to offer "expert testimony," as it were, for an RfC.

Honestly, I think that Sophroniscus should have taken his/her concerns to the diocesan bishop, rather than writing an encyclopedia article, but that is only my opinion. A sneaking suspicion tells me that the Wikipedia article hasn't done a lot to redress his/her grievances. -- Essjay · Talk 16:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

NB: I moved the proposal from my regular sandbox space to a special page, so there would be a clean talk page to comment on. -- Essjay · Talk 16:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Made a few proposed changes to Essjay's proposed version. Take a look. JHCC (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it's already been moved into the articlespace. -- Essjay · Talk 18:53, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

For your help in cleaning up the POV issues at Infant Communion, I award you this barnstar. Thanks! --User:Jenmoa 04:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with this article. It's appreciated. You were one of a couple of editors who really worked at fixing that article up. :) --User:Jenmoa 04:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested

You might be interested in this current vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Roman Catholics -Doohickey

Apostles' Creed

Is there a reason that I'm missing, dear to Methodist hearts, which could explain why the entire Creed should be included twice, in that article. I have been called a troll and a POV pusher for removing it. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prevenient grace

Thanks for acting on my suggestions to improve the article. I think you're nearly there in terms of the article being ready for applying for featured article status, but I think the "The Doctrine in other sources" section needs to be expanded a bit first. I'm temporary away for the next couple of weeks, so good luck if you decide to to nominate it for FAC in the near future. Deus Ex 22:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eucharistic discipline

Requesting your contributions to Eucharistic discipline, especially Eucharistic discipline#Methodist practice, I remain your obedient servant, JHCC (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew

I wonder if you would consider voting on this VfD. It is headed for 'no consensus', which IMO would be unfortunate. The article confuses vatious patristic references to give the impression of evidence for a proto-Matthew, in a way no Bible commenary or Bible Dictionary would ever countenance (indeed none mention something called 'Authentic Matthew'). The author's insistance in linking it into other Biblical Studies articles is driving me to desparation. --Doc (?) 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the vote has since closed - but you might like to look at my suggestion on the article's talk page --Doc (?) 20:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Methodists

I noticed that Samuel Porter Jones was missing. That won't do. Please stop by to expand the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and world religions

You appear to have reverted yourself, and left some dead links. Did you intend to do that? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mtallman response

Thanks for leaving a message on my discussion page. Thank you for the wiki welcome. I appreciate it. I am currently a Nazarene but grew up in the conservative holiness movement, hence my contribution to wiki for the Conservative Holiness Movement article. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I find Wesleyan/Methodism history interesting. Take Care. --Mtallman 19:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Common Grace

Please see new article on Common grace. It is a stub that is probably inadequate as it stands. Regards, Jim Ellis 16:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Mythology flap

Howdy. Would you bring your more moderate views over to Category_Talk:Christian mythology and see if we can sort this out? Thanks. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. What do you think about how this is panning out? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perseverance of the saints

Hi, Keith. I saw your addition of contrarian print resources to Perseverance of the saints. Two questions:

Do you see those as necessary in addition to the web resources? (For such a short page with no citations of those books, it seems like overkill to me.)
Do those books particularly address the perseverance of the saints, which is to be distinguished from "once saved, always saved"-type eteranal security.

Cheers! --Flex 14:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Flex...is it this particular Calvinist doctrine that contains the "once saved, always saved" ethos? I've always thought that "eternal security" was a part of or version of perseverance of the saints. If there's another place for it, let me know. I just wanted to present all views...pro and con...in both print and on the web. I just know more "anti" sources than "pro"! Let me know! Thanks...Keith 16:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Calvinist doctrine of perseverance certainly does teach that somone once saved will always be saved, but that actual phrase is most commonly used by non-Calvinists like Charles Stanley who believe it for different reasons (reasons which Calvinists typically deny). Thus, in my second point, I was asking if those resources deal with the Calvinist version of eternal security, the Stanley-esque version, or both. My first point, however, remains: I think there are too many if they are unreferenced. Just my opinion. Maybe you should create an article on eternal insecurity where they would fit better. ;-) --Flex 16:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Flex - the page doesn't really go very far in explaining the difference between "once saved, always saved" and what you're calling the Calvinist view. To most of us, I think they are synonomous. Maybe you could explicate that a bit more on the page. Should "Eternal security" or "Once Saved, Always Saved" be a different article from Perseverance? KHM03 20:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]