My answer to this question was deleted by @caleb, a moderator without a single down vote cast. The alleged problem with my answer is that it fails to meet his bar for dealing with all objections:

Re your flag: the quote you added does not resolve the issue. It's a citation for something other than the main point of the question. The point Jamieson makes here doesn't say anything about a parallel track of there not being the concept of election outside of the some specifically referred to here. You need a source where the same source denies election among gentiles while affirming it for some Jews. – Caleb♦ 2 days ago If this requirement doesn't make sense or you disagree with my assessment, please ask about it on meta. – Caleb♦ 2 days ago

Is there a recognised soteriology that combines selective election for some and general election for everyone else?

My problem isn't that he didn't like my answer (I'm not sure he ever does) but rather that he killed my post rather than letting the original poster and others decide if it is useful or not. I think it very likely that it would be helpful.

I thought that people were supposed to vote on whether or not a question is "helpful" or not? I've seen (and can point out) many less useful posts (IE: many posts are never deemed useful by voters) that were and remain extant. Further, I have reason to believe that caleb is acting from personal animosity at me for not "being a good boy and only posting The Truth of Trinity and Calvinism", etc. (caleb will not be getting my vote).

Why was my post singled out for deletion and not subjected to the usual process of at least being voted on? Is this not a rigged election (pun intended)?

PS: If you need me to point to some extant crappy posts that were not deleted by caleb, please let me know.

  • 4
    Please list a half dozen of the extant crappy posts. If they need attention, any of us can flag them for moderator action. Just a personal note: I am not Reformed, nor Calvinist; I am Catholic. I have found @caleb to be a most excellent mod here, and helpful to me in a variety of ways. Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 13:21
  • FWIW, if you were trying to soften me up, the “election” pun in regard to current events vs. my theological position was actually pretty funny and using one of my favorite words (extant) was also a good move. On the other hand spelling my name with a lower case letter (4 times) didn't score so well.
    – Caleb
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 14:09
  • @KorvinStarmast Weren't you the moderator who said that if I added a source (other than the scriptures, which I did add) it would be a good answer?
    – user22588
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 14:19
  • @caleb Obviously, I'm not here to soften you up.
    – user22588
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 14:23
  • Obviously. But if you were ever to try here's another pro tip: chocolate. Always chocolate.
    – Caleb
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 14:33
  • 3
    @WoundedEgo I am not a mod, just gotten a bit of rep here and there, and I'll go back and check to see what I said if the comment is still there. I may have said "doing X would improve the answer" but since all of that's deleted, I don't have access to what I actually said in the comment. A lot of times one of us will suggest a way to improve an answer, but that does not quite mean "Easy Button pushed" if there are still some issues extant. Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 15:03
  • @KorvinStarmast, in this case it was actually another user (not moderator yet, although they are running in the election!) who had helpful left a comment to the effect of needing a source for a theologian that espoused the position. WoundedEgo yes that user did suggest with that issue taken care of it would be a good answer, but that isn't what you supplied. See my answer below for why.
    – Caleb
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 17:18

2 Answers 2


I thought that people were supposed to vote on whether or not a question is "helpful" or not?

That is correct. But before we allow voting to take over —and specifically in order to make the voting meaningful by avoiding voting wars between competing ideas— we require posts to meet some minimum requirements.

  1. They have to match the scope of the question. A question about LDS beliefs may not be answered by some Reformed Protestant that says those beliefs are baloney. It doesn't matter that I think such an answer would be useful to the OP and all readers. It doesn't matter that given the Protestant majority that participates here my answer would likely be voted up above any LDS answer. What matters is that that answer would not be in scope for the question.

  2. We must be dealing with extant groups and established doctrines. We decided long ago that experimental theology would be off topic. In other words nobody gets to soap box their own ideas, posts are required to document the established beliefs of third parties. The poster may or may not agree with those beliefs, it doesn't really matter, but the beliefs have to be presented from the viewpoint of whatever established group holds them.

Why was my post singled out for deletion and not subjected to the usual process of at least being voted on?

The question you answered asked specifically about groups or denominations that have established teachings along specific lines. Your answer post did not answer this question, instead it launched into your personal reasoning why you think that teaching might be true. Upon my initial note about that problem you edited it to show how one theologian agreed with your assessment about one premise of your reasoning. It does not even show that that one commentator even arrives at the same conclusion you do and the whole post still says nothing about groups or denominations that hold such a view. It's still basically just your argument why that view is true.

Voting on such a post is less likely to reflect how useful the answer is and more likely to reflect other people agreeing or disagreeing with your reasoning. We specifically discourage this and deleting posts that are outside the scope of the question or argue a truth position rather than just document extant beliefs is part of how we discourage that so the voting that does happen is more meaningful.

If you need me to point to some extant crappy posts that were not deleted...

Flag away, that's what the tool is for. Neither I nor other moderators read every post on the site. We rely on flags from the wider community to bring our attention to posts that don't meet the basic qualifications for an answer and require a moderator's intervention. Such was the case with how I came to the post in question here. When you run across other posts that don't meet these basic standards, flag them for the next available moderator to deal with. If you're feeling really helpful, also comment to the user about what the problem is as this saves moderators a lot of workload explaining the same things over and over.

  • Obviously I wasn't asking you.
    – user22588
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 12:10
  • 8
    @WoundedEgo Fair enough, you don't have to take my word for it and anybody else is welcome to answer. But since you do call me out by name it's only fair that I get to explain the thought process behind the actions I took. If others disagree with my assessment of the situation I'd be happy to re-evaluate, but it should be easier for them to assess whether I acted in concert with community guidelines or not having my reasoning out in the open instead of hidden behind declined flag responses where it was before (so thanks for asking on meta).
    – Caleb
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 12:27
  • @wounded This post has 7 up votes.
    – user3961
    Commented Jan 19, 2017 at 16:02

Additive to Caleb's response, that post simply didn't answer the question. The question asked if there is an existing soteriology that teaches X. You answered with notes about whether or not X was valid Biblically.

That's no different than if I were to ask you if there's a store nearby that sells 100 watt light-bulbs, and you respond by telling me that 100 watt light-bulds are bad for the environment, and cite sources showing how 60 watt bulbs are sufficient. That all may be well and valid, but my question wasn't whether I should use them, it was "Is there a store nearby that sells them".

Again, the question was "Is there a recognised soteriology that combines selective election for some and general election for everyone else?" Your "answer" didn't answer the question.

See this post if you're unclear about the guideline for answering the actual question asked.

The fact that there were no down-votes also does not tell the whole story. I'm prevented by the moderator agreement from sharing specifics, but users often flag posts without down-voting them. You don't know if there were any (and if there were, how many) flags from users on the post, but I can tell you that Caleb does not have a history of deleting items unilaterally. We all pretty much do so in response to flags from the community.

Final note, you're right, there are a bunch of crappy posts not deleted by Caleb, or any of the other mods. Please, feel free to learn the guidelines of this particular Stack Exchange site, and start flagging them. the moderator team can't catch all of the bad posts. We rely on community members to alert us of bad posts.

You must log in to answer this question.