Talk:limited atonement

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

limited atonement

total depravity

Are these (badly formatted) entries idiomatic? If kept, they need some cleanup. Ƿidsiþ 06:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are idiomatic amongst all Calvinist denominations: Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed,Christian Reformed, Hugenots, etc. In fact, they have been since around the year 1520, wherein the Synod of Dort established them. One of the prominent intellectuals who disagreed with the TULIP formulation was denied protection of the church and thus thereinafter promptly executed. The doctrine has proven quite robust and may still be heard on the lips of Sunday morning congregants, who sharply distinguish themselves from Methodists, for instance, who do not believe in it. And Roman Catholic doctrine takes it up as an example of extreme anti-Pelagianism.

http://calvinistcorner.com/tulip

The formatting is not fantastic, but this is only my third day on Wiktionary, although I have some years at WMF. I would like to find a bot to create or cleanup, but that is beside the point of the rfd.

I would be quite disappointed if the above is not accepted as ground for retracting the rfd, because I hear American Protestants rant about total depravity like the North Africans used to rant about Arianism before the Arian heresy was put down.

Remember, a cyber dictionary can be much bigger and cover a vastly greater number of entries than a dead pulp treekill.

Also, I just checked the Random House "Webster's" dictionary next to this computer, here in a public (non-religious) university. It has a listing for total depravity I didn't check the other because if one goes in all five should IMO.

Keep

Geof Bard 07:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like sum of parts, bad capitalisation, no proper definition. Deleted SemperBlotto 08:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I am creating limited atonement (I don't believe this is generally or necessarily capitalised) based on Wikipedia; it's more than sum of parts. Equinox ◑ 16:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither of them seem obvious sum of parts. Poorly written definitions do not help the matter, however. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There are three explicit or implicit keep posts to this nevertheless there deletion was performed in violation of the posted policy whereing seven days are supposed to elapse. Furthermore, total depravity is an idomatic compound as argued here. Jeff K says it "looks" like sum of parts, but Equinox and MG both agree they are not. I have read other posts where Semperblotto is criticized for violating WMF custom and who simply replies "what are you going to do about it"? What should I do - reinstate total depravity and let it go at that? Resign as myself and go into anonymous posting mode, as a protest? Leave wiktionary, altogether, in protest of arbitrary WMF viol? Geof Bard 20:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have for now restored total depravity so it can be properly discussed. Yes, the deletion was premature and should not have been done. -- Prince Kassad 20:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OneLook dictionaries have these, with correct capitalization. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So does that mean keep?

Moreover from the help pages: Idiomaticity An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components. - - For example, this is a door is not idiomatic, but shut up and red herring are. - - Compounds are generally idiomatic, even when the meaning can be clearly expressed in terms of the parts - [End of citation.] - Contrary to what some may think, the term is not sum of parts and not derivable from its constituent parts, for this reason: the "total" quality of the "depravity" is not a matter of 100% exteme evilness, it is a matter of "everything that you do is touched by Original Sin". Thus, for instance, my protestations against arbitrariness on wiktionary is a transparent attempt to elevate my standing amongst the community of disputing editors, a cheap shot of a short cut to try to win respect amongst a small group who have put hours and hours and hours of scholarly and technical work. Obviously, there is nothing truly meritorious in my little campaign to reinstate "total depravity". It is a pathetic and meaningless attempt to win merit and put one more feather in my cap when I join the saints, or the damned, in the next life. In short, an attempt at salvation by works, a crypto-Pelagian crap shot, a contemptible attempt to do via bhakti yoga what can only be done by God's grace through, but not by, faith. If Semperblotto bans me, blocks me, ignores me, I could only know that it would be a predictable outcome to my contentiousness; it does not matter in terms of my salvation whether or not I do a good job of making the case, or whether I just let it drop, or antagonize the top gun admin and get kicked out of wiktionary. Because, in accordance with Calvinism, everything I do is marked by total depravity. This applies even if I were to live a life like St. Francis, or St. Stephen; all is marked by Original Sin, even the most altruistic things. - - But that does not mean that they are totally and completely mean, wicked and evil, to the core. They can in fact be good acts of self sacrifice and charity. But - even those acts are tainted, and they will not earn salvation. Sola gratia. - - Thus is the doctrine of total depravity under Cavinism. I don't think I offered an encyclopedic definition, I think I posted a simple dictionary style definition. The Webster's at the University library has an entry for total depravity. I think this is a case in which the hard working, indefatigable Semperblotto maybe jumped the gun, and the main thing for me to bear in mind is a teaching of Pema Chodron, which is the slogan "No Big Deal.(BTW, I would vote delete on No Big Deal as a classic "sum of parts" example.)

The protest options at this point seem unecessary and a bit more drama than I would like to be responsible for. But I almost came to blows in a writing class, over a disagreement pertaining to a revision of Strunk and White's Elements of Style, and the other guy was spouting off about pistols and making hints of, um, his interest in certain family traditions. I can get passionate about The Word, and I was not raised as a Johannine Christian. But if words are the essence or manifestation of Logos, they are worth debating and worth certain sacrifices.

I found it inauspicious to have such an important definition be subject to arbitrary deletion contrary to the posted policies and procedures. But I do enjoy this site very much, and, despite his apparent willingness to wield the big stick, he has done an amazing job of putting this wiki together and I would rather stay in his good graces/good grace. Geof Bard 20:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Does anyone ever get to the end of these rants without losing the will to live? SemperBlotto 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I lost mine about twelve years ago, which has helped immensely. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished. A comprehensive - you might find exhaustive - case made is a service provided for benefit of the project mandate. Just because it is lengthly, does not make it a "rant". To so characterize it as such is probably an indication that you routinely provoke anger in serious new users and expect anger. But if I have any anger, it is that such an important piece of this good work that you do is hampered by your inclination to dictatorial snap judgements and disregard of Wikiettiquette, particularly Don't Bite Newbies.

You are obviously very busy with a complex software project to manage, and you probably prefer a more concise brief. But it would be more constructive to simply ask for a short summary of points than to issue one of these barbs with which you take advantage of your personal indispensability to wiktionary.

I suppose it does anger me to think that the personal whims of one person could determine policy on so vast and influential a project. You are in a position to do a lot of damage to the English language if you impose too much of your own personal predilections and ignore the spirit and letter of Wikietiquette by reckless actions such as summarily barring total depravity without discussion. But I had thought that we were beyond that.

I came here to work on the languages that are of concern to me not to recieve a spate of cyberinsults. Geof Bard 00:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Good. The basics are in WT:CFI and WT:ELE. I am sure that many folks are willing to provide help on problems in interpreting and applying those pages and on matters not covered there. DCDuring TALK 00:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

RFD passed it seems! Equinox ◑ 22:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)