User talk:Flex

Hi Flex. I'm still not sure I understand why Greg Bahsen wouldn't deserve his own page. We aren't conserving print space here. I don't recall wikipedia having any sort of threshold in terms of how many original contributions one must make to have a wikipedia page. He is quite famous (within Reformed camps)--he has produced many books, articles, and debates--and whether or not you like it--when you say "Van Til" many people immediately think of Bahnsen. Another reason why I can't understand why he wouldn't deserve an entry is the fact that his contributions are not just limited to apologetics, but also other topics such as theonomy, reconstructionism, theology etc. His apologetics are based on Van Til, so naturally they are not "original contributions". Even if he weren't an author, the well-known debate with Gordon Stien would almost be enough to validate having an entry on here. As far as I am concerned, if a name is significant enough to be named in an article, in most cases it is significant enough to have an article. Those are my thoughts.

Let's move this to Talk:Cornelius Van Til.

Hi

Great picture of Van Til -- I'm pleased we have one for Presuppositional apologetics. Just one note -- it needs to have an image tag -- is it public domain, fair use, or what? See Wikipedia:Image use policy or just drop me a line if you need help. Also, congrats and thanks: congrats on your article on PA being featured (I think it's really well done) and thanks for working with me to do the final polishing to get it to featured status. I think it's definitely work to be proud of. Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 23:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pic of Norbert Wiener

Where did you find the picture of Norbert Wiener? The NY Times has what looks like a larger version in a recent article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/books/review/020THOMPS.html), and that image is attributed to MIT, which has a number of other images of him on its website. Presumably MIT owns the copyright. --Flex 15:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summary, I got it from his MacTutor biography. MacTutor says their pictures are all in the public domain. Michael Hardy 23:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calvin and witch-craft trials

Hi, Flex, I made these remarks. Sorry it did not meet your formating standards. I'm quite content if you rewrite it or format this particular contribution. As far as I know this is a part of Calvin's life which people have rather neglected - or they don't like to talk about it. I have never found any literature about it in English and the books in German have never been reprinted lately. What you wrote about vandalism that's not correct. I'd be obliged to you if you delete this remark. Best regards Ben

Moved to Talk:John Calvin --Flex 20:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

Hi Flex; Reading through the Minnosota Public Radio article linked, it looks to me like some indeterminate number of monuments were placed at least partly to promote the movie. Do you know that this is the case for most of the monuments? I do have some concerns about the point of view expressed in this section. Would it be useful to consider moving the material about the current political controversy to a seperate page, and linking to that page? Regards, Tom Harrison

Hi, Tom. This article (http://www.answers.com/topic/the-ten-commandments) indicates that there were "scores" of monuments, and this article (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0325-31.htm) from the NY Times indicates that the number is "several thousand." On the other hand, this article (http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/Only-In-America-SearsArchives.cfm) indicates that the number was in the hundreds. On second reading of these articles, I don't know that "most" is justified over "many." Note, however, that DeMille's cohorts in the stunt were the fraternal order of Eagles, which is "a nationwide association of civic-minded clubs founded by theater owners," not simply an ordinary service group. As for the POV of that one sentence, I'm a conservative Christian, and I don't have a problem with it. I'm fine with moving the topic to a separate article. --Flex 21:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flex; Thanks, I'll read up on the issue and check out the links. Sometime next week I'll see about moving public monuments to its own page, unless someone else beats me to it. Interesting about the Eagles club. --Tom harrison 11:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christianity Template

Though you could call the Reformation a "movement" at the time, it is established enough by now that I think the existing link to 'Protestantism' on the template is quite sufficient. Of course there have been all sorts of historical Christian "movements", I think it's best if we list only a few of the most prominent modern ones on the template to keep it within reasonable size.--Pharos 17:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Solus Christus

Dear Flex: I've not done much research on the form that this sola appears in, but have seen it enough as sola Christus for it to look funny to me to see it any other way. We can go to Solus Christus for now... If I get a moment I'll look around... and all I thought was this would be a quickie 8-) --CTSWyneken 16:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) [relocated from User:Flex]

Atonement (Governmental view)

Flex: See the talk page on Atonement (Governmental view). Thanks! KHM03 19:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Patrology

I wouldn't know. You should consult Catholic Encyclopedia or something similar (use google). I know only what I wrote as I study medicine not theology I. Sorry. I was writing an article about a professor of patrology - that's why I added it. --Eleassar777 20:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neo-orthodox doctrine

Can I ask why you feel references to Karl Barth, a primary figure in Neo-orthodoxy, should not be included in this section? --Randolph 01:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you prefer them at the end of the paragraph? --Randolph 01:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't object in principle. It just seemed to break the flow of the paragraph as written. --Flex 01:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree. :) It was misplaced. I think it would be best at the end of the paragraph. I'm going to place it there if you have no objection. --Randolph 02:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calvinism

Flex: Good recent edit. I was confused by the most recent edit by the anonymous user, who stated that "Calvinist" was used as a negative term by the Church of England. My understanding is that the Anglican Articles of Religion actually represent at least a mild Calvinism (which John Wesley subsequently edited for use by American Methodists). Not sure what the anonymous user meant or what support the user's assertion had; I had thought of editing it myself, but thought I'd leave it to someone a little more versed in Calvinism. At any rate, I appreciate your clarification. KHM03 13:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, KHM. Thanks. I saw the links you added to limited atonement, and I wonder about their direct relevance (except perhaps for the hymn by C.W.). I don't object to having contrary opinions listed there (though perhaps we should break it into "pro" and "con" sections in that case), but, based on my superficial scan, the articles/sermons listed seem to deal with predestination in general rather than the limited atonement in particular. Certainly the topics are inter-related, but I imagine you could supply some links to Arminian/Wesleyan sources that concentrate on the generality vs. the particularity of the atonement (cf. Hodge's treatment (http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/HodgeVIII/P3_C08.htm) of the question "For whom did Christ die?"). --Flex 14:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I will certainly look into that, and modify accordingly. I would have no problem with a "Pro" and "Con" section under links, though I confess that I know more "Con" than "Pro" on that particular subject! I also noticed a page which could use the attention of someone with a greater knowledge of Calvinism than myself...Perseverance of the saints. I went through it and made a few corrections, but it could really use some work, if you think you could help. Thanks. KHM03 22:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice job on the Hyper-Calvinism section. Much clearer and NPOV. --Cberlet 20:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Divide et Impera

Hi Flex, thanks for your great contributions to my favourite list. Two questions about divide et impera: Why Julius Caesar in particular? And did you really mean Louis XI or rather (my guess) Louis XVI? Greetings T.a.k. 20:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, T.a.k. You're very welcome! According to the article Vercingetorix, Julius Caesar describes using the "divide and rule" strategy in his Gallic Wars. It was a general principle of Rome, to be sure, but it seems that he was perhaps its greatest exponent. Also I believe Louis XI is correct, and some other names could be added to the list (see this article (http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/divide.shtml), but note that I do not endorse the website). --Flex 00:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Hyper-Calvinism

I've noticed & appreciated your edits on Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. It seems to me, however, that this "subgenre" of Calvinism still exists (on the WWW, in many congregations, even to some degree in some more conservative Reformed denominations); could you mention it on the wikipages? While I know Hyper-Calvinism is still with us, I certainly defer to the expertise of folks like yourself and Jim Ellis in "things Calvinist". Thanks for considering! KHM03 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, KHM. The subsection under Calvinism seems to communicate an on-going use of the term (IMHO). Are you speaking primarily of the full article (Hyper-Calvinism)? --Flex 13:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's really clear on either page. You might mention a contemporary example of hyper-Calvinism...just a thought. Thanks. Also, I noticed (re:Calvinism) that Irresistible grace needs some attention by someone more astute than I, when you have an opportunity. KHM03 13:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Covenant Theology

Flex, Thanks for the message. I appreciate your changes. I agree with 95%.

I am adding some info in the Covenant Theology discussion page. Please provide feedback.

Thanks, Jim Ellis 14:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Quinquarticular Controversy

Flex,

There wasn't an article on the "Quinquarticular Controversy" even though it shows up as a Wiki-link in two or three related articles. Therefore, I made a feeble attempt at making one. Please add any improvements or clarifications you feel necessary. Regards, Jim Ellis 18:39, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Justification (theology)

I've been working with a few other users to perfect this troubled page...any input is appreciated! God bless...KHM03 22:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but that subject is complicated and sticky. There's the old controversy over sola fide, imputed and infused righteousness, etc., which had the Reformed and Lutheran churched united against the Roman Catholics and which may or may not have been a big misunderstanding. In Reformed circles now, there's a lot of debate over the "New Perspective" on Paul and justification. I don't know much about that. Not sure how helpful I can be. --Flex 19:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up after me

Thanks for cleaning up after me in some of my edits. I've noticed you have a knack for clarification and often more succinct or appropriate wording. Keep up the good work. :-) Jim Ellis 16:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Prevenient Grace

Hi...I have no problem with changing the name of the article to "Prevenient grace"...there's no one proper way to state the term. I will try and get to it at some point but have been very busy lately. Feel free to do it if you have an opportunity. I'll get to it eventually.

Yes, I am from western Pennsylvania, the general Pittsburgh area. Why do you ask? KHM03 12:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm originally from western PA, too, about 70 mi north of Pittsburgh and my in-laws still live there. --Flex 12:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am originally from Johnstown; my wife is a Pittsburgher and I attended Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I have lived or served in Edinboro, Indiana, Punxsutawney, Greensburg, and Connellsville. Any of those places ring familiar? KHM03 13:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My grandmother (Kathleen Kaufman Limber) is also from Johnstown, but most of my family is from Greenville (Mercer county, near Sharon). We moved when I was 8, however, so I don't have much knowledge of the local geography. My in-laws live in downtown Pittsburgh. --Flex 13:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Prevenient grace opposition section looks OK to me...I'll do a more thorough look later. Thanks for doing the move...KHM03 13:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I put basically the same content in total depravity, but fellow Calvinist User:Mkmcconn didn't agree with my revisions. (That article now requires cleanup and POV adjustment, IMHO.) Maybe at your convenience, you could throw in your two cents on Talk:Total depravity to get some discussion rolling. Grazie! --Flex 13:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it is not vandalism just because you don't agree with it

I don't appreciate you going to page after page removing all the contribs I added. If you have no knowledge on the subject, do NOT "correct" what others put.--uber

Not sure which piece(s) of vandalism you are talking about. When you add serious material (as you did in the second round for Alligator snapping turtle), it can stay. When you insert the word "moron," unilaterally blank pages that you don't agree with (Intelligent Design, Scientific Creationism), and enscribe your value judgements in various articles, you are vandalizing. --Flex 20:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

arbitrarily removing anything a user posts would be vandalism, too buddy.

At least you've admitted you have a problem, but where did I "arbitrarily" remove your contributions? Those that I reverted were non-conformant to the Wikipedia policy for NPOV or unnecessary (e.g., the change to the present tense in PETA; cf. Commandment IX (http://personal.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/courses/10commnd.htm)). --Flex 21:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Flex"