User talk:Telikalive

https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/

Hey buddy, why did you delete the recent addition of William Laud's page? The addition came information supplied by this website: http://thomashollandtranslator.co.uk/sample-page/ , which cited Alexander Wilson McClure's book 'The Translators Revived : a Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible' (1853), see https://archive.org/details/translatorsreviv00mclu/page/134.

The text itself is historical and directly quotes the two men concerned --When the execrable William Laud, afterwards the odious Archbishop of Canterbury, was going through his exercises as candidate for the degree of Bachelor in Divinity, in 1604, he contended “that there could be no true churches without diocesan episcopacy.” For this the young aspirant was sharply and publicly rebuked by Dr Holland, who presided on the occasion; and who severely reprehended that future Primate of all England, as “one who sought to sow discord among brethren, and between the Church of England and the Reformed Churches abroad.”-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Ridgeland (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Didymus Ridgeland:. "Alexander Wilson McClure" is actually the reference that you must give using the template : {{cite book |url=xxx}}. (this is not compulsory, but in addition, it would be nice if you can put it into the section "Sources", and call it using {{sfn|McClure|1853|p=134}}.)----Telikalive (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Telikalive:. It is done as you wanted, is it satisfactory?

Hey @Didymus Ridgeland:. The {{cite book}} part, is not especially my will, because you can't quote an unsigned website as a source anywhere on wikipedia. This is a certainty. Thanks for using {{sfn}}, which is a plus. Now we can let people judge the relevancy of this quote right there in this article.. ---Telikalive (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Telikalive:. Let's hope they don't judge too harshly.

Greetings Telikalive. I have never heard of this guy (probably because his works are in French), but would love to see his Systematic Theology get translated into English. You did a nice job on the article. Do you have any interest in starting to translate his Systematic Theology on Soteriology into English? Thank you for introducing me to this Arminian writer. Blessing to you. ClassArmClassArm (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ClassArm: Honestly I have no interest to translate from French to English, because first this is 1000 pages long books, and English is not my native language, thus such kind of work is not recommended in this direction.

To me, there are actually more urgent things to do since there where in 2019, only 3 articles dealing with Arminianism on fr.wikipedia.org. So I started the translation of english articles. (already 25 articles).

Unfortunately. I had to spend a lot of time to source and also to make more encyclopaedic the english articles. You, english speaking people seems not to be aware that the english articles are the base of the translation into the other languages. And if those articles are not respecting the encyclopaedic rules, this is going to generate exactly the same problems for the people who will translate them into the "200" others languages.

I give you an example :

Conditional preservation of the saints, I took 5 days of vacation to translate 253 457 bytes of it.

Apostasy in Christianity, I took 3 days of vacation to translate its 163 169 bytes.

Results : Those 2 articles were simply destructed to less than 10% of their content and with relevant arguments.

Those articles for example, would be interesting on "The Society of Evangelical Arminians", but certainly not on wikipedia.

They are absolutely not respecting the wikipedia standards. They should not quote primary source the way they do it now. And they should be summed up drastically (at least -50%). Otherwise, all the people around the earth who will translate such kind of articles will do the same mistake I did, and will simply lose their time, as I lose mine in long endless debates to save my translations.

Actually those are not exceptions, because most of the actual articles dealing with Arminianism are not respecting encyclopaedic standards. For instance, the introduction of Arminianism should be reduced of (-75%) in length and should not provide information that are not presented in the rest of the article. Most of the biographies of Arminian peoples are not sourced correctly. Can you imagine that the english wikipedia article of Roger Olson did not even say he was Arminian, 3 months ago ? There is a huge corrective action to be taken here. Hope you can help. ---Telikalive (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts in getting the Arminian content up to standards, and more. I've begun to seek others in my community (Society of Evangelical Arminians) to help create content and edit for standards. We all have day jobs, so the going will be slow. Please be patient with me and the eventual additional participants. Best regards, Tomas NW7US (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Preceding comment added by NW7US (talk • contribs) 11:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor NW7US: Thank you for your answer ! ---Telikalive (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Telikalive: I will try to take care of voting, etc., over the Thanksgiving holiday. I've had a very busy month (illness, a surgery coming up, and work, of course). NW7US (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Telikalive: I just added my support to the Arminian content. After my last communication with you, my mom passed away, I changed jobs, and I've had surgeries. Now, with Covid-19 here, I have a little more time during which I am trying to catch up with my Wiki tasks and participation. Thanks. NW7US (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor NW7US: Thanks. I understand that is was a lot of things to deal with and certainly a lot of stress for you. I hope that you can take this time to rest now. FYI, I updated the list of articles to source or create on this project page. (Priority should be given to the existing articles to be sourced.) An example of one sourcing in progress is my former work on Lenski. See below convo, if you want to participate. See you. ---Telikalive (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Telikalive. I've reverted you edits on Richard C. H. Lenski because they appear to be original research. Also, I think you are overlooking the fact that Lutheran views on these subjects (and Lenski was pretty much a mainstream conservative Lutheran theologian) are neither Calvinism nor Arminianism. Certain individual aspects of Lutheran doctrine may seem to be compatible with one or the other, but in their totality are neither. That's why picking out quotes from Lenski's commentaries will not tell the whole picture. Indyguy (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Indyguy: Hello, first of all, I want to tell you that get you point. So, this is simply me attempting to discuss with you, through the following points:

• Let me just develop here a little about a theological nuance on the meaning of terms like : "Arminan soteriology", "Arminian doctrine". Here are some sources :

1. Paul Martin Henebury (M.T.S., M.Div., Ph.D) writes : "R.C.H. Lenski – Conservative Arminian" [1],

2. Cyril Barber, /The Minister's Library/ writes : "A conservative, very extensive and generally helpful exposition based upon an exegesis of the Greek text. Arminian in doctrine, [...]" [2]

When those people say that, they don't deny that Lenski has a Lutheran background, or belong to the Lutheran denomination. They say that Lenski's soteriological scheme is Arminian, which excludes some aspects of the Lutheran soteriological scheme. Maybe did I just miss to mention such a source ?

• My own understanding is that an Arminian soteriological scheme excludes some aspect of Lutheran soteriological scheme, and excludes all aspects of the Calvinist soteriological scheme (total depravity is shared by these 3 systems).

Just in order for me to understand your point about Calvinism: Let's take someone who is Anglican, or Lutheran, or whatever the denomination. Do you think that if he/she holds to the 5 soteriological points of the Remonstrant confession, he can be simultaneously qualified as a Calvinist in soteriology even in some extent ?

Thank you. I value your work on Wikipedia ---Telikalive (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Telikalive, thank you for the invitation on my talk page. I will certainly check it out! With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Anupam: Hope you are doing well. Based on your editing history you are visibly less interested by articles concerning individuals. But I just want to let you know that I listed some Arminian individuals here who don't have yet an existing WP biography! Bye ---Telikalive (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Telikalive, could you kindly have a look at the article titled Believers' Church? Until I saw this article on Wikipedia, I had not seen this term anywhere, though the article creator has added it in as a defining feature of "evangelical theology". I suggested a page merge here in the past. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings To editor Anupam:! I think that Believers' Church is a different concept than invisible church. The first concept focus on a process of conversion to Christianity. The second is a conceptualization of the Christian Church. Believers' Church article describes the specific process of entering the Church involving Profession of faith and new birth in evangelicalism. It can be left as it since there are apparently some sources for this concept. but, if those sources are considered insufficient, I would personally transfer the content into a section "evangelicalism" in new birth. ---Telikalive (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply User:Telikalive. Have you heard of the term yourself before? The sources do not seem to be online ones and as such, verifying them would take some time. I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Anupam: No, I'm not personally familiar with this term. However, I checked successfully ref 12, "Sébastien Fath", who is indeed an expert in this domain. I think also that the concept name can be misleading in itself. I think the idea of "voluntary membership to the Church" would express maybe better the main point of the concept. Then if a merging would be necessary, I think its place could be also in this article church membership. ---Telikalive (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply User:Telikalive. Did the reference delineate the term in the same way that the article presents it? I am concerned about the fact that the term has been added throughout several important Christian-related articles on Wikipedia as an integral concept to evangelical Christianity, yet I see little evidence for it. Would you be interested in starting a discussion there on the talk page with what you have found? I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 20:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: In this case yes, the reference delineates the term in the same way the article presents it. But this is of course not enough and more sources have to be checked. I can start such a discussion topic---Telikalive (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your edits to this article. I think your additions and revisions help to provide clarity and improve organization. At this point, I was wondering whether the Neutrality note can be removed. I am not aware of any reasons provided to challenge the Neutrality of the views expressed. Thoughts? PTSaputo (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor PTSaputo: Hey, the article is "unbalanced" in favor of the Protestant views, this is why there is a doubt about the neutrality. Please refer to WP:WEIGHT. An example is that in the prayer section there is only the Calvinist view. The other Christian views (Catholic, Orthodox, other) should be mentioned as well. This is what I mentioned in the discussion page. Telikalive (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor PTSaputo: Following your remark I added WP:WEIGHT to the article talk page so that people know more precisely why this article has to be improved ---Telikalive (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there are many Christians today who oppose unconditional election yet teach eternal security, but secondly Clement and Ignatius never actually directly wrote against the Gnostic views of election, which actually also differ from the Augustinian view, it was also written merely as Gill's interpretatiom and not as a scholarly concensus. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ValtteriLahti12 Oups I missed this message, I directly answered in the eternal security talk page. Please refer to it, and continue the discussion there. Actually, I wanted to say thay both of them opposed determinism, and especially determinism post-regeneration that is included into eternal security. How did they opposed it ? simply through their teaching of the possibility of apostasy. I hope I'm more understandable this time. I'm sorry, I was unclear in my first comment. ---Telikalive (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]