User talk:Theodoc
A belated welcome![edit]
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Theodoc! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Deletion of sourced material[edit]
You have massdeleted material on Free Grace theology that had multiple sources, for example there are multiple sources which say that the Antinomian controversy was a controversy about Free Grace theology. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- You also apparently called my edits biased and hostile, even though as a reveal, I believe in Free Grace theology. Also "inward Reformation" was a term I used to mean "repent of sins", to not confuse it with Ryrie's definition of repentance.--ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- John Cotton was not Free Grace. He was a Calvinist who believed humans are passive as God's free grace is bestowed unilaterally on them. The term "free grace" is being used in the Augustinian-Calvinist sense, not the modern Free Grace theology sense. Read Wikipedia's article on John Cotton. Neither was Anne Hutchinson Free Grace in the modern sense - however, she did support one tenet: "That no sanctification can help to evidence to us our justification" and "Antinomianism, the view that existing laws and practices were not necessary for salvation." Sandeman was not Free Grace in the modern sense. This Puritan requirement was very different from today's modern concept of Free Grace. This is why this "Antimonian Controversy" does not belong here. If you are Free Grace, then you should welcome my deletion, not fight it.
- Regarding Scharnschlager, your cited author admits that "While we have no existing documents to back up what he says". No documents supporting it means it must be deleted.
- "Inward Reformation" is not an accepted theological term for "repent of sins". It is best not to make up your own terms in these articles. If you are Free Grace then you are shooting yourself and your colleagues in the foot by these changes.
- Please redelete all of this under "Reformation and early Protestant proponents" except the first paragraph yourself. If not, then I will need to have the Wikipedia editor become involved to delete the inappropriate material. 136.244.8.115 (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Instead of deleting the material, I have decided to make it clear that it is the OPINION of these two researches, that they taught Free grace, now the article should be written neutrally and I hope this compromise helps. It now presents the Marrow Brethren and the Antinomians as being CLAIMED to be Free grace by these researches, but does not claim it as undisputed facts, similarly for Sandeman, it says views SIMILAR to Free Grace theology, not necessarily the same. Additionally I changed it to refer to "forerunners" to make it clearer that they might not have been identical to the letter but were still similar, I also did not make up the term "inward reformation" but saw it used in sources on the Marrow controversy and there have been Free grace theologians to teach election (for example Charles Ryrie, who is a 3-point Calvinist from what I read his books). Remember also that wikipedia is not a place to place your own opinions but you must follow references, as there are references associating these with Free grace, they can be mentioned in the article, by the very least as the opinions of the researchers. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- You completely misread what the source said on Scharnschlager! The article said that we have no source made by the people mentioned themselves, but the article claims Scharnschlager as documenting their existance. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Instead of deleting the material, I have decided to make it clear that it is the OPINION of these two researches, that they taught Free grace, now the article should be written neutrally and I hope this compromise helps. It now presents the Marrow Brethren and the Antinomians as being CLAIMED to be Free grace by these researches, but does not claim it as undisputed facts, similarly for Sandeman, it says views SIMILAR to Free Grace theology, not necessarily the same. Additionally I changed it to refer to "forerunners" to make it clearer that they might not have been identical to the letter but were still similar, I also did not make up the term "inward reformation" but saw it used in sources on the Marrow controversy and there have been Free grace theologians to teach election (for example Charles Ryrie, who is a 3-point Calvinist from what I read his books). Remember also that wikipedia is not a place to place your own opinions but you must follow references, as there are references associating these with Free grace, they can be mentioned in the article, by the very least as the opinions of the researchers. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)