Talk:Unconditional election

message: You might want to include a bit on what Calvin had to say about this idea.  KHM03 16:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do (when I get a chance).  I assume you will be adding a section on opposition. :-)  Jim Ellis 17:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
...unless God himself beats me to it!  KHM03 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Calvin?

message: FYI I am planning to rework this article to parallel the structure of total depravity, limited atonement, etc. --Flex 17:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
:Good.  Hopefully that can be done while keeping the source information I have added.  Regards, Jim Ellis 17:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Except for short quotes in the normal flow, I would probably lean toward reducing it to references in the footnotes (rather than long quotes), as in total depravity. --Flex 18:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
:  I defer to your judgment.  Jim Ellis 18:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, I've not gotten around to this. Please feel free to take a swing at it, one and all. --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rework

message: Hey, I took it upon myself to rework part of this wiki. I hope it is clear. I also wanted something about the effect of this election. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newchasm (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text you added is a start, but it is not neutral (e.g., it appears to claim the truth of what it states rather than expressing it as the view of Calvinism, and it is written in Christianese with phrases such as "enemies of the Cross"), is not wikilinked, and lacks references to reliable sources.--Flex (talk|contribs) 15:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to clean up the article a bit by adding some new sections in. Will work on it some more in the coming future. Five Pointer 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Rework 

message: Started a verses section that we could expand on later.
Five Pointer 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verses are an important part, but just listing bald verses is asking for trouble. The understanding of many of the verses used to support unconditional election is disputed by many interpreters, e.g., Arminians, Catholics, etc. Better, I think, is to add some key verses with citations to notable interpreters of it (e.g., Calvin). --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Since I have received no response, I am going to revert the verse as well as other recent changes. The long quotations in the intro are unencyclopedic, and the "Christianese" was less before. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a verses section... 

message: User:Avielh added a bunch more verses and arbitrarily converted the text to NAS. The latter move seems certainly against the spirit of arbitrarily changing things based on personal preference (cf. WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English, WP:FN#Converting_citation_styles, etc.). 
I changed it back and redacted the list because the list was overly long (listing a few key passages with secondary sources backing up the understanding is much better) and because several of the verses didn't seem directly applicable. For instance, John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said to him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.'" is not obviously related to election so much as to regeneration. We who have a greater understanding of the ordo salutis certainly see the connection between them, but it is not immediate and direct, which I'd argue these verses should all be. 
Avielh reverted this change, but rather than edit warring, I'll propose here we redact the list to the key passages (in the ESV, since that's where these started). --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I have received no response, I am going to revert the verse as well as other recent changes. The long quotations in the intro are unencyclopedic, and the "Christianese" was less before. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More verses

message: Section Biblical passages is not OK acc2 wikipedia policies, specifically WP:PRIMARY, unless we produce external secondary sources that uses exactly those biblical passages to defend exactly Unconditional election. We have no rights to list our own reasons for adhering to a certain theological stance here, that would be WP:OR. Since that is an endemic disease for christian protestant and other religious articles, see also Conditional election, I'm seriously considering a campaign against using Wikipedia as a battle field for theological debate. Wikipedia is for encyclopedians, and theological debate should be resolved outside Wikipedia first, then we might edit carefully and in consensus. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I applied , which already existed. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 15:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flawed section