User talk:One Salient Oversight/ - archive

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 07:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia! Always good to see a fellow Aussie here.

I hope you're not offended by my deletion of that source material you added, and the Wikipedia would welcome articles on those topics.

If you've got any questions, ask on the Wikipedia:Village Pump, or if you'd like to specifically ask me you can do so on my talk page. --Robert Merkel 12:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, do you realize that you can retrieve the stuff I "deleted" from the catechism article by using the "page history" link on the side of the page, if you want to add it to Wikisource? --Robert Merkel 13:03, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that my Hunter Tylo bit was POV. I reread it and I still don't think so. In any case, the changes you've made are good. Mike H 02:05, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

yay

someone appreciates me! lets edit again together :D Sam [Spade] 07:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Calvinism

Wow, are you a calvinist? determinism and all? Sam [Spade] 07:38, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much. I accept the Bible's claims that it is Divinely written and therefore has sole authority in matters of Christian belief. Once I accepted that as fact, all my Bible research pointed towards Predestination/Determinism as a concept that was explicitly taught. Of course this does raise all sorts of philosophical questions eg: Did God determine 9/11? If he did then is he to blame? And if he is to blame then isn't God evil? And if God is evil doesn't that contradict the Bible's view of him and therefore prove Christianity is wrong? Unfortunately I have to accept that yes God did determine 9/11 but no he is not to blame and no he is not evil. This of course sounds illogical, but if the Bible is taken as Divinely inspired then that is the conclusion you come to.

Of course I am a lay preacher so please forgive the short sermon!

Actually that was just what I was looking for, thanks! I am not a Calvinist, but I have studied the doctrines (I study religion.. religiously ;) in particular because a) I am fascinated by the puritans (while not Calvinist exactly, they had many theological similarities) b) I am fascinated by the reformation, Martin Luther and his contemporaries, and c) Because I disagree w the doctrines of Calvinism so strongly and thoroughly.

I believe freewill is a central component to theology, and is the only thing similar to a limitation on God's Omniscience (for example Adams choice to defy God surprised and upset him, as did the misdeeds of the Israelites thruout the OT). I believe God creates freewill intentionally, knowing full well that it might result in chaos and suffering, but also knowing it would lead to sincere obedience and spiritual growth despite those hardships.

An interesting question this brings up is the tree of good and evil, and if God wanted Adam to taste of its fruit. The Bible suggests (to me) that he did not. So perhaps ignorance was bliss, and God never intended so much suffering to result from his gift of freewill? I don't pretend an easy answer to that, and I hope you don't mind my being a bit preachy, but theology is my favorite topic and all ;) Here's a link to a related discussion if your interested. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 18:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah... do you really want to get into this discussion?? ;) Fortunately I am not one of those "Hyper-Calvinists" who believe that acceptance of Predestination is essential for a person's salvation. I also believe in evangelism.

Many Calvinists feel that their position is not understood properly when it comes to freewill. While I would argue that, for example, God predetermined 9/11 but was not responsible for it, that those who were responsible for it were the hijackers and Osama. Yes God predetermined the event, but the evil was comitted by those perpetrators. Hard to swallow logically, I realise.

You've probably heard the "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" argument as well - that before the Exodus God was actually causing Pharaoh to reject God's own commands to him to let Israel go. This is a vital passage for Calvinists because it shows a) That God predetermines people's actions, even when those actions are sinful, and 2) That the predetermined sinful action is the fault of the sinner rather than the predeterminer.

As for those passages that seem to deal with God's inability to know what will happen in the future (eg the Garden of Eden), the proper Calvinist reply is that God did know what was going to happen but the text at that point treats God's reaction in human terms. Yes again you've probably heard this argument.

What has really convinced me is the belief in Monergism rather than Synergism. This attempts to answer the question of "When does the Holy Spirit come upon the Christian? Before conversion, during conversion or after conversion?". A Calvinist would say "before Conversion" - the Holy Spirit enters into a person, regenerates them, and then, now that they are a new creature in Christ, they repent of their sins and trust in Christ for Salvation. An Arminian (Synergist) would say "During conversion" - that the person and the Holy Spirit act together in unison to regenerate the person and repent and have faith in Christ. A Pelagian would say "After conversion" - that a person has to repent and place his/her trust in Christ first before the Holy Spirit comes upon them and regenerates them.

Monergism is supported by verses like 1 Corinthians 2.12 - we can only understand God's free gift of Grace by receiving the Holy Spirit. 1 John 5.20 says that "The Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true" - which indicates that Christ is also involved in this thing. Ephesians 2.8 says that it is by Grace we have been saved, through faith - and this (faith) not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. Faith is therefore seen as a gift - something God gives you, not something you exercise.

Feel free to find passages that refute this. However I have to say that the Pelagian belief - that repentance and faith must precede the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, is actually quite a seriously bad thing to hold. Why? Because it seems to suggest that mankind is not enslaved to sin, and that he or she can, by their own free choice, choose to serve God. People who hold to this belief tend to move towards a denial of original sin, and put the focus away from Christ's sin sacrifice upon the Cross. I find it hard because it seems to suggest that there is some innate goodness in every human being, but that seems to contradict Romans 3.10-18.

See my contributions to Charles Grandison Finney for more of this issue. I reckon Finney was a Pelagian, and unsaved. Hard, I realise, but I have to stick to my guns on this issue.
Now... do you really want to keep talking about this? I'm happy to in the nicest possible way!

Thank you for both your generosity in writing at such length, and your offer for me to "opt out" if I was in some way uncomfortable. Frankly you'll probably have to let me know when your no longer interested in the discussion, since the only thing that makes me lose interest in a discussion of this sort is rudeness (some people can't seem to discuss such things w/o being rude) and inability to comprehend (this is a big problem when chatting w foreign folks, esp. Muslims who try to convert me online ;). As far as Monergism, I kinda agree w you, but I think I tend toward synergism. I see a mixture of freewill and determinism, not an absolute one way or the other. For example, an emptiness in my heart led me to religious studies, which resulted in God making himself known to me, which resulted in my knowing and loving God. I won't say conversion, because I'm largely interdenominational (I accept almost every denomination as being a useful method of worshipping God). In any case, I see a mix. I say the larger, meta-issues (like prophecy for example) are predetermined. The smaller, day to day choices however I see as left to our freewill. How do I reconcile this? I say that while God has chosen certain "guidepost" events (such as certain matters of prophecy), the way we will reach them is based upon unforeseen choices and events resulting from freewill. No matter what we do, the same general results will occur, but at different times and in different ways than if different choices had been made. To me this explains why the time and place of Christ’s return cannot be known. That it will happen is absolute, but the specifics are influenced by worldly actions. I see God as omnipotent of course, and entirely able to influence or alter any event. I also see him as choosing to allow us freewill however, and accepting the misery and misfortune resulting from it as necessary in reaping the benefit of sincere love and progress in the hearts of men. Thank you very much for your interest, please let me know if you tire of the dialogue, and please feel free to take as long as you care to in making your reply. Very nice communicating, God be with you, Jack / Sam [Spade] 17:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Biblical inerrancy

It's good to see a pro-inerrancy person work on Biblical inerrancy. While I personally believe the Bible is error-prone, the article itself was waaaay imbalanced towards anti-inerrancy. I've posted a comment on the talk page there though; I'm not clear what your addition was meant to show, and I think it would make more sense if some other things were spelled out.

Thanks, welcome, and feel free to organize the page better, right now it is really poorly done and seems like a random bunch of arguments, which is not what an encyclopedia article ought to be. (Just be careful about NPOV while doing it.) Cheers! Jkeiser 02:42, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

List of religious topics

Hello. When you write a new article on religion, could you add it to the list of religious topics? That alerts some interested readers to its existence. Also, if you find one that is not already listed there (a few weeks ago I found that the article titled Easter was not listed there; I was quite surprised). Michael Hardy

Will do. Thanks for your help. One Salient Oversight 10:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

I really appreciate what you wrote re my own additions to the Spanking article. I further appreciated getting to know you better, after having read those comments and looking about to see who you are.

I enjoyed, especially, your article on biblical inerrancy. I am one who does believe that the Torah, in its original autographs, was completely inerrant, and it does not shame me to say so. I do believe, however, that some of the writings considered to be Scripture today have been tweaked for both political and religious purposes.

Although I saw the article about spanking some time ago, I avoided writing anything, because I had already written the Non-violent Child Discipline, which had originally been part of the Spanking article on Wikipedia before I knew how to make my name appear on my articles. I believed that I needed to stay away from the "other side" because I do have very strong feelings against spanking [smile]. However, all of my opinions on the subject are based upon self-education in that area. I can claim no real expertise; therefore, I remain hesitant (to a point) to add much to the spanking area.

My first husband and I were discussing cessation of spanking when he was killed. When he was gone, I tried to do what he was thinking we should do and stopped spanking. The children were ages 5 and 2. Now ages 33 and 30, I enjoyed them as both children and teens, and they both are fabulous adults. It has been a good life with them.

I noticed that you made the very revisions to the [Pentecostalism] subject I was working out how to phrase myself last night. Thanks for clarifying the Pentecostal vs. [Charismatic] issue in the introduction. --MtB 17:39, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Edit attributions

Hi, Neil. It is possible to reattribute the edits from User:Neilinoz to your current username, per your request on Wikipedia:Changing username, If you still want this, can you please login as the old username and confirm the request on that page? Thanks — Kate Turner | Talk 09:12, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Thanks, this has now been done. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 10:10, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Stalin quote

I removed the last sentence because the previous two sentences already said it was "popularly attributed" to him and that it was possibly said in response to Churchill. Everyking 10:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hanegraaff

Your argument is fair enough. I thought the implication was that Hanegraaff himself is a pentecostalist/charismatic, but if you wish to include him simply on the basis of his polemics against them, that is fine with me. - Nat Kraus e 07:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quotations from Apologetics Index

Hello! About the new articles that you're creating that are composed entirely of quotations from Apologetics Index: I think you might be breaching their copyright. I know that using short quotations do not count as copyright violations, but the phrase "The following is a quote from Apologetics Index" does not disguide the fact that you are transferring their content over wholesale, and that their content comprises the entirety of the articles.

I'm not 100% sure about this, so I've posted to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems about this.

- Katherine Shaw 12:15, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please consider whether what you are doing is 'fair use'. Charles Matthews 12:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One Salient Oversight, thanks for the response on my page. I still feel it's rather dubious, even if your intent is for the copied content to disappear very quickly. The topics will undoubtedly be of use to somebody, but I can't see the need to get an article up as soon as possible - my instinct would have been to write stubs (however bad) and then flesh them out, rather than risk copyvios.

Anyway, as it's up elsewhere for others' opinions, we can see what they have to say, see what happens.

- Katherine Shaw 12:30, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think I may have accidentally broken "fair use". I am contacting the Website author and will remove the quotes if he asks me to, or if he does not respond within a few days One Salient Oversight 12:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal topics

Hi

I notice that you have been adding many, many article to this category. Some seem to be of doubtful relevance, and some are much better off in a wider category. Gospel for example is better in Christianity than this topic. Many of the authors you have put in here, like Michael Green are only marginally relevant to the Charismatic movement. I'm undoing a lot of your additions - can I suggest we discuss what goes in this category before we add many more? DJ Clayworth 14:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, please do not create article simply by copying text from The Apologetics Index. Apart from the copyright issues, Apologetics index is not exactly a neutral source. DJ Clayworth 14:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You seem to have added around twenty or thirty articles that are straightforward copies of another website? Please do the decent thing and list all of these on Wikipedia:Copyright problems youself, saving us the work of doing it. If you add a note saying that you submitted them in error then an admin will delete them speedily for you, and we can all get on with something useful. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi. See the talk immediately article above about the copying and pasting of Apologetics index texts.

I would have thought that Michael Green was an important link to have because he is a theologian that is sympathetic to Charismatic theology and practice. One Salient Oversight 22:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Incurring the wrath of One Salient Oversight??

Not really! However I'd just like to ask you if you looked at my talk page about the possible copyright infringements before you added the "warning" section on all the pages I created. In that discussion I admitted that there was a possible breach of "Fair use" policy and that I had contacted the author for direction. Moreover I then pointed out that I would remove the offending text if the author directed me to, or if he did not reply within a few days.

You've obviously done a lot of work in re-jigging everything that I had done. Please understand that I was prepared to do all this myself (and made it explicit on my talk page). If any copyright infringements were made it was all an honest mistake that I was prepared to clean up myself. The text you have put in place is all rather official and "we will ban you if you do this again", which sort of makes me feel like a criminal or an idiotic newbie.

I've actually seen some of your work and I think that your contributions are pretty good. I would love to work with you on improving all these articles to make them of a high quality. One Salient Oversight 22:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OSO Again. I'm also of the opinion that many of the pages that were removed from the category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Topics are, in fact, important to the topic at hand. Even though Gospel and Pastor are not in themselves exclusvely Charismatic and Pentecostal, from the C/P perspective they are. Examples:

Sabellianism is an ancient teaching that was condemned by the church. It is present in Oneness Pentecostal churches.

Followership is a behaviour that is encouraged and even explcitly taught amongst many P/C churches.

Alternative worship came about mainly because of the influence of the Charismatic movement in the 1960s and 1970s.

etc etc One Salient Oversight 23:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I moved the above from my own talk page to keep everything together. Thanks for your reply - let me approach what you said point by point.

The copyright of the articles you added is obviously important, but its not the only issue. Firstly, and in a minor way, it doesn't help Wikipedias credibility if all it has on a subject is a quote from another website. Even a very short stub is better than that. Secondly the source you quote is not exactly a neutral one. In one article it calls the preacher 'unbiblical' in the second sentence, having given almost no details on what he actually teaches. Our job as encyclopedists is to give the facts about who we are writing about. I'm not saying you shouldn't use sources who dislike subjects, but they shouldn't be the main source of information. It would be much better to write a couple of paragraphs on these subject - in the case of people give birthdates, primary accomplishments, a short summary of the distinctive features of their teaching. Then add criticisms as required.

On the subject of the categories. The reason I removed a lot of these categories is not because they aren't relevant to the Charismatics, but because they are relevant to a much wider range of people. Gospel for example is relevant to all of Christianity. Having added it to Category:Christianity there should be no need to add it to subcategories. If we did we would have to add it to pretty much every subcategory. That would make Gospel a little crowded. This is a precedent already; we don't add people to both Category:British writers and Category:Writers. Besides, if there was a book of the Bible with special relevance to Charismatics surely it would be Acts? You will notice I left First Epistle to the Corinthians in, because of its passages with special relevance to Charismata.

With some of the other people I think there needs to be a special connection between the person and Charismatics for them to be in the category. Michael Green may be sympathetic to the Charismatic movement, but so are many other thousands of theologians. Also Michael Green is sympathetic to dozens of other movements within the church, and many of the much more so than to the Charmismatic movement. I debated a long time over whether to remove Alpha Course and Nicky Gumbel. I realise that to those not used to the gifts of the Spirit the Alpha Course looks quite Charismatic. However of the millions of people who are involved with Alpha, only a tiny minority are in any way associated with Charismatics or Pentecostalism. In fact Pentecostals would probably have serious disagreements with Nicky - he does not see Glossolalia as a defining gift, and he considers it to be a 'beginner' gift. His association with the Charismatic movement is peripheral at best. Putting him in this category gives a misrepresentation of him.

Sabellianism is, as you say, an ancient heresy which is present in parts of the Pentecostal church. So most Sabellianism occurs (or occurred) outside the Charismatic movement, and most of the Charismatic movement is free of Sabellianism. The overlap between them is quite small. I think a much better way of showing this link is to make a link from the article Oneness Pentecostal to Sabellianism. Putting it in the category gives the misleading impression that Sabellianism is associated with most of the Charismatic movement.

Alternative worship we can maybe discuss. But Praise, Worship, and most of the others are part of most branches of Christianity, likewise Pastor. Like Gospel, we would have to add them to the category for every Christian movement and denomination if we added them to Charismatic.

I hope that helps. I'll not remove any more categories until we've talked about this a little more. DJ Clayworth 13:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. How would you feel about merging Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Baptism of the Holy Spirit, or explaining why they are not the same thing. I though they were, but I'm not confident enough to be sure. DJ Clayworth 14:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

G'day DJ. Thanks for your detailed reply. In future I will be very careful about getting quotes. It was my hope to create a little more than a stub so that others who went to those pages would get some information about it. I was quite aware of the bias, which is why I made sure that I was giving a quote rather than pretending it was original work. My intention was to create a small article with some information that I would work on later. Oh well, live and learn I suppose!!

As a result of this, I am now considering the idea of creating a page entitled Charismatic and Pentecostal related articles or similar. This would help get rid of any problem with having an inappropriate category attached to Gospel and Pastor, while still having a link to those articles from one end. Sabellianism and Followership would probably go onto this page as well. I suppose I went a bit overboard when I created the category. Again, live and learn.

As far as I know, Nicky Gumbel and the whole Holy Trinity Brompton thing is charismatic. Yes they definitely have differences with other Charismatics and Pentecostals, but the whole C/P movement is so nebulous that it is hard to pin down exactly what is going on. Latter Rain Movement and Manifest Sons of God are areas of the movement that have caused a great deal of controversy and those who held on to these beliefs were expelled from the US Assemblies of God during the 1950s for being heretics. Modern day adherents to this belief would probably suffer the same level of antagonism from within the wider Charismatic and Pentecostal movement.

One of the advantages of doing this was the realisation that Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Baptism in the Holy Spirit would obviously need to be merged. The same can be said for Spiritual possession and Demonic possession. I'm happy to work with you on these to merge them together.

Again, thanks for your input. I really enjoy Wikipedia when problems get resolved in a peaceful and adult manner! One Salient Oversight 23:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More Hank Hanegraaff

Greetings from Southern California! (Hank's greeting at the start of the Bible Answer Man radio program) I'm a fellow Southern Californian like Hanegraaff, and I thought you'd like to know he has repeatedly said on air he is Charismatic in that he speaks in tongues. Other than that, he isn't your standard Charismatic or Pentecostal. Very much like folks at Calvary Chapel instead. BTW, I also added a bit more on World Prayer Center, and am familiar with it because of visiting the church that sponsored it being there, New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Hope all this is helpful! --avnative 20:40, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Greetings from Australia! Thanks for your information - it is actually very good to know that Hanegraaff is a Charismatic since it is very useful to have criticism of a movement from the inside as well. I hope you like Criticisms of Pentecostal and Charismatic Belief. One Salient Oversight 22:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney

Want to join? I'm still formulating policy. Incidently, there is a message board Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board - Ta bu shi da yu 06:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'spose so. What do you guys actually do?