User talk:Wooster

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

---

Hi Wooster. To answer your question, I am a "five point Calvinist". Regarding the Calvinism article, if you think that it is confusing to add the phrase in the list of "hypercalvinism", then it's fine with me if it is removed. I think that, in the U.S. anyway, the phrase "once saved always saved" has become quite severely depleted of it's doctrinal content. A similar phrase, that has suffered similar demise (in my opinion) is "eternal security". It tends to mean, "I prayed the prayer" (to invite Jesus into my heart), "and now I'm saved". The doctrine of perseverance of the saints is certainly a lot more nuanced and full of instruction than that, and so I don't like the identification between the corrupted version and the full idea. Of course, the phrase itself can certainly indicate the full idea, if that's what someone means (even then, I niggle over using the term "saved" as though it were a once-for-all thing that happened - a decision, a walk down the saw-dust trail, for example). Mkmcconn 23:30 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Basically, what I'm arguing for is that, wherever a phrase could cause confusion, you have to ask the following question:

Providing the terms are understood as a subscriber to this view would understand them, would this hypothetical subscriber agree?

Wooster

More simply, I'm arguing that people who make the statements you're referring to - and yes, we have them here, as well - have misunderstood the meaning of "saved", which misunderstanding is not the realm of the Wiki. I don't disagree that there are greater nuances there, but nevertheless, Rom 8:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ROM+8:30&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) which is of course stating that 'if ever once you were saved, you are now' - but of course, tied up with that is the fact that salvation is tripartite, past, present and future. Wooster 10:48 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

PS - thanks for the foresight of moving this over here, I feared we might have run out of space!

I confess that I try to work against allowing the articles to promote pop-culture versions of theological topics: if anything, I want them to differentiate doctrine over against caricatures, over-simplifications and slogans (positive and negative), in order to underscore the fact that slogans are useful for polemical purposes, but not for definitions. See the article on Arminianism, for example, which has tell-tale signs of my hand:

In popular usage, Arminianism is the belief that once a person has been "saved" (accepted the gift of salvation by trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior), it is possible for the person to lose his or her salvation by leading an unfaithful life and/or turning away from Christ. When Arminianism is referred to in this sense, it is in contrast to the popular simplification of the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the saints, commonly expressed as "once saved always saved."

Mkmcconn 15:34 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I can't say I disagree with the sentiment, but I think the outworking is slightly different. It may be a simplification - indeed, it is - but it's not a simplification too far. I still believe the answer to the question I posed has to be "yes" - despite the simplification, which is bound to occur in trying to summarise a key doctrine (or part thereof) in four words. And as such, it didn't belong under hyper-Calvinism, even if it isn't necessarily something you'd put in the Wiki entry under discussion. I'd just have left it out, meself. Wooster

Interestingly, my 'popular usage' of Arminianism (I'm afraid again, I use the term non-Reformed) contrasted their position on Unconditional election with my own. But hey - I've already observed that I'm not much of a judge on popular usage :) Wooster 21:05 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

PMFJI, but... Perseverance of the Saints means exactly that. The Saints (the elect, the saved) will persevere (will continue to be the elect, the saved). Being elect doesn't start at a particular point in time, it's an eternal condition. Being saved does start at a particular time, but salvation is conditional only on being one of the elect - if you are elect you will be saved (whether you want to be or not). "Once saved always saved" is therefore a necessary corollary of this doctrine. I agree, however, that OSAS is an inaccurate restatement of the doctrine, as it is a necessary but not quite sufficient condition.
On the wider point of "the 666 signs of hyper-calvinism", I must admit that my own view is that arminian thinking has invaded the Reformed churches so much now that most people who claim to be calvinists are actually arminians, and therefore tend to regard true calvinists as hyper-calvinist --PS4FA (4-point allegedly hyper-calvinist)

Puritan

I saw your note, which I thought was a good point and put a note on User talk:Mkmcconn. I should have come here first, I see...Pollinator 16:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hymns

Hi Wooster,

Just saw your comment at talk:Hymn and made an amendment to the article. Also worked your point into the article When I Survey the Wondrous Cross. Let me know what you think. Quill 00:57, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Didn't think anyone else would be interested in continuing discussion on Talk:Joy to the World, so I came over here. My point was not to suggest that Lift up Your Heads should not be identified with Joy to the World! because they only share four notes in common, but because of the quality of that sharing. It doesn't really 'sound' familiar to me. Hearing Lift up Your Heads in that four-part harmony has never called Joy to the World to my mind. I think part of the reason is that the resolution of the phrase is completely different, leading to a lack of association one with the other. It might be different if Lift up your Heads was a familiar section of Messiah, but I for one don't hear it all that often.

Moreover, I distinctly remember being utterly confused when first learning of the connection. The first thing that came to my mind when I heard the words 'Lift up Your Heads' was the hymn 'Lift up your heads, ye mighty gates, behold the King of Glory waits....' You can imagine my confusion trying to figure out a link between that hymn tune and Joy to the World! The other straw my brain grasped at was the line from The Holy City ('Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Lift up your gates and sing...')

I point this out because I don't think I would ever make a 'quantity over quality' argument.

Quill 22:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Four notes or forty, they are actually far closer than the opening of Comfort ye. As for being familiar, they're all as familiar as each other to me, as I tend to listen to Messiah right through whenever I do. In fact, it was probably the first time I heard Joy to the World after hearing Lift up your heads that I made the association. So, in short, it does sound familiar to me, whereas I had to ask about the Comfort ye connection. I'm not claiming that the refrain of Antioch was written with Lift up your heads in mind, but then, I doubt you're claiming that the opening was written with Comfort ye in mind. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know. Wooster 08:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) with no grin, just "shooting out his lips" : p

Oh, pooh-pooh! [Quill sticks out tongue] 'actually far closer'?! You're kidding right? On what far-flung planet?

Seriously, though, I certainly wouldn't argue that your finding Lift up your Heads more reminiscent of Joy to the World that the opening of Comfort Ye is any less valid that my finding it vice versa, and I'll leave it there.

I, too, tend to listen to Messiah all the way through, but what I meant was that I've heard the other, more popular sections much more often. e.g. The Christmas Section on its own is most often heard in concert, one hears popular selections in church and on radio, in recitals, etc. etc. Cheers Quill 01:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Capitilization

I've cleaned up the Bahá'í Faith, the Báb and other Bahá'í related pages -- Navidazizi 04:24 2 Jan, 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for that -- I'm not, as you might have guessed, a regular Wiki-editor, and I just happened to pass by today, so it's rather a stroke of luck that I spotted your message. I think the Bahai-related pages are the most likely to revert, because apparently Bahai's have some thing about capitals, while we who are Christians tend to be somewhat confused on the issue. *grins* Wooster 22:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually I am a Bahá'í, and while I would always capitalize the pronouns in relation to Baha'u'llah, Jesus or Muhammad in my own writings, I fully understand why the pronouns should not be capitalized in the wikipedia pages. I'll try to keep the capitilization in the Bahá'í associated pages in check. -- Navidazizi 22:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guessed from your username you might be Bahai, not Christian. My comment didn't mean to include you, but rather me and my co-religionists -- my apologies for any confusion caused. (Darn it -- I'm having a conversation about clarity in writing on another messageboard and might just have disproved my own point...) Wooster 22:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)