| Revision as of 16:21, 28 July 2007 editGordonofcartoon (talk | contribs)7,228 edits →GES is notable← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:02, 28 July 2007 edit undoMidwestRails11000 (talk | contribs)199 edits →GES is notableNext edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| ::::As I said above, nothing can be inferred from inclusion/exclusion anywhere unless that inference has been previously made in a reliable third-party source (see ]). In any case, this ] in assuming that importance is measured by inclusion in collections of, themselves, unproven importance). | ::::As I said above, nothing can be inferred from inclusion/exclusion anywhere unless that inference has been previously made in a reliable third-party source (see ]). In any case, this ] in assuming that importance is measured by inclusion in collections of, themselves, unproven importance). | ||
| ::::Out of interest, do you have a connection with the GES? ] 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | ::::Out of interest, do you have a connection with the GES? ] 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: I'm a member of GES, and have been one for years. I have also been far more successful in editing in a "Neutral POV" than has been found in Wiki on this issue for years. You've seen the changes I made to the ], now take a good look at the juvenile nonsense it replaced. It seems to me that the Neutral POV standard can conflict with the need for a specific published analysis from secondary sources, when the debate is asymmetrical. Two primary sources, John Piper and John MacArthur, who are the two prime movers in Lordship advocacy, have published their view that the GES is the main voice in the debate. But they don't count. It’s not begging the question to say that a small controversial organization’s inclusion in a collection shows notability. Their smallness and their controversial nature means they shouldn’t be included because they should be irrelevant. Common sense is needed here. ] 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Jim Carrey== | ==Jim Carrey== | ||
Revision as of 23:02, 28 July 2007
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 July 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Administrators--
Notability
The Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, clearly an independent source, has for years included The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society on it's Trinity Journal CD. This demonstrates that the GES is considered notable. Following is a quote from Trinity's webpage describing different versions of the CD:
"Trinity Journal ...can now be read and searched along with a number of other theological journals(emphasis added-js). http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/trinityjournal/cd
Among the 15 journals included are:
- Master's Seminary Journal (2001)
- Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (2003)
Another Trinity Journal CD contains JOTGES from 1988.
Thank you for giving me time to present the notability of this page.
Johanna Sawyer 04:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
While there are 15 journal's listed in the Trinty CD, There are 14 in the 'Theological Journal Libraries CD', this is another independent source. http://www.logos.com/products/details/3027
'"450 Years of Theological, Archaeological and Apologetic Journals!
Since its inception, pastors have raved about the wealth of pertinent information(added emphasis - js) found in the Theological Journal Libraries. These journals give scholarly theological insight, the latest archaeological findings from the Holy Land and advanced apologetics.
Again, the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society is included on this theological journal CD. And notice that the Grace Evangelical Society Journal is called "pertinent" above. Johanna Sawyer 04:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Theopedia, independent but not objective, has been called on your site, in an external links section (of the Lordship salvation Page) an encyclopaedia that "supports" lordship salvation. Yet, even Theopedia finds Grace Evangelical Society notable by using it exclusively in its citations in describing what they oppose in this theological controversy. Johanna Sawyer 04:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
John Piper, again not objective, but independent of GES, has a letter on the large monergism website that cites very negatively at the outset Bob Wilkin and a GES newsletter article. He also refutes the GES more generally. See this page: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/lordship.html Thanks again for hearing this issue of importance and notability out. Johanna Sawyer 06:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Theopedia, being user-contributed without editorial control, is not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards, so no inference can be made from what it includes or cites. In fact, by the WP:NOR policy, no inference can be made from anywhere on the basis of inclusion/exclusion or citation/noncitation. An organisation's importance in some context can only be judged by what reliable sources explicitly say about its importance. Gordonofcartoon 12:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability - take 2
I've re-added the notability tag following a look at the GES website. This article survived the AFD, but it was not made clear during the AFD how small an organisation this is: just, it appears, a small company in Irving, Texas.
Much of this article belongs elsewhere, in generic articles on the Free Grace theology vs Lordship Salvation debate. Here, it wrongly gives the impression that the GES is the prime mover relating to this school of thought. It ain't. See this list. Gordonofcartoon 12:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
GES is notable
The Free Grace Seminary List contains ministries that are free grace but that unlike the GES invariably have purposes other than defending Free Grace Theology and critiquing opposing theologies in scholarship and in local churches...
- ARIEL MINISTRIES - Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum - evangelism and discipleship of "our Jewish brethren"
- DR. MARK G. CAMBRON - is a teacher and writer, none of his 11 books obviously deal with the FG/LS topic
- CLARITY MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL - Dr. Richard Seymour- A bible teacher that may be FG but doesn't overtly discuss FG as such
- Dr. G. Michael Cocoris - Evangelism Studies - This teacher does have one book devoted to the LS debate
- Dare 2 Share - Greg Stier - purpose is teenage evengelism, doesn't use FG or LS terminology
- E-GRACE - a safe place for Bible study online, uses both "free grace" and "dispensational" terminology, no newsletter, no membership
- EVANTELL - R. Larry Moyer - not overtly FG in the sense that it uses "FG" terminology
- FOCUS EVANGELISTIC MINISTRIES - Evangelist Freddie Coile - site didn't open properly
- FOCUS MUSIC MINISTRIES - Doug Stroup - a family musical group
- FORERUNNER MINISTRIES - Dr. Earl D. Radmacher Radmacher has been a contributor to the GES journal, but this site is not fully online
I could go on, but the GES is clearly the one ministry that has as its only purpose to promote a clear, meaning Free Grace, Gospel. It is not simply a ministry that affirms free grace doctrine, of which there are many, as your list shows. It is effectively and overtly responding to the Lordship opposition. It publishes a scholarly journal that is recognized by independent scholarship, showing that it is small but notable. Johanna Sawyer 03:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure they could all claim uniqueness in some way. The point is that it's just one small organisation out of many with this stance. Gordonofcartoon 12:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Uniqueness isn't the issue, nor is simply having a FG stance. The GES is the prime mover in this debate over the core message of Christianity, because it is isolating the debate as decisive and engaging in it as its sole mission. None on your list is doing that, they are Christian ministries engaged in a variety of practical matters. The GES inclusion in the theological journal collections--despite its size--shows its notability.Johanna Sawyer 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I said above, nothing can be inferred from inclusion/exclusion anywhere unless that inference has been previously made in a reliable third-party source (see WP:NOR). In any case, this begs the question in assuming that importance is measured by inclusion in collections of, themselves, unproven importance).
- Out of interest, do you have a connection with the GES? Gordonofcartoon 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a member of GES, and have been one for years. I have also been far more successful in editing in a "Neutral POV" than has been found in Wiki on this issue for years. You've seen the changes I made to the Lordship page, now take a good look at the juvenile nonsense it replaced. It seems to me that the Neutral POV standard can conflict with the need for a specific published analysis from secondary sources, when the debate is asymmetrical. Two primary sources, John Piper and John MacArthur, who are the two prime movers in Lordship advocacy, have published their view that the GES is the main voice in the debate. But they don't count. It’s not begging the question to say that a small controversial organization’s inclusion in a collection shows notability. Their smallness and their controversial nature means they shouldn’t be included because they should be irrelevant. Common sense is needed here. Johanna Sawyer 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Uniqueness isn't the issue, nor is simply having a FG stance. The GES is the prime mover in this debate over the core message of Christianity, because it is isolating the debate as decisive and engaging in it as its sole mission. None on your list is doing that, they are Christian ministries engaged in a variety of practical matters. The GES inclusion in the theological journal collections--despite its size--shows its notability.Johanna Sawyer 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Jim Carrey
À propos of nothing; I wonder why the GES staff page has a picture of Jim Carrey. Gordonofcartoon 12:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)