Talk:Protestantism/Archive 1

message: Every biblical reference cited in the Tenets section is for the Catholic position,
and the `sola gratia' section contains only one clause on the Reformers' position
and two on the RC one!  On citing chapter and verse for doctrinal positions, we 
should either (1) not do it at all, (2) cite the verses Protestants appeal to in the
Protestantism entry and cite the verses that Catholics appeal to in the Reformation and
Counter-Reformation entries, or (3) we can go whole hog and cite both positions and 
defenses here as well.  I support (2). 
This RC-centrism is in amusing evidence in the comment that the "magisterial Reformation"
derives its name because the Protestants were objecting to the teachings of the Magisterium!
Of course, this etymology is nonsense; 'magisterial' refers to magistrates, not the teaching 
office of the Roman Catholic Church.  That the latter was simply assumed is revealing.
I've repaired the 'magisterial' silliness but would be interested in comments before
I revise the doctrine section.
AlexKepler 20:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be silliness, but I've repeated for years that the first wave of Reformation was called "magisterial" because it was primarily concerned with objections to Catholic teaching that began within the Roman Catholic Church and led to separation from it.  Since I still hear this explanation repeated by many Protestants, I think it's a mistake to call it "RC-centrism".  Anyway, your take makes much more sense, and is more fully descriptive of the difference between, say, a Lutheran and an Anabaptist: the one magisterial (state-recognized and sponsored), and the other radical.  Mkmcconn — 21:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, perhaps I'm attributing to one brand of silliness what is really rooted in another. :) Good edit, btw.  Do you have suggestions on whether or not revising the Tenets section is worthwhile?  I'm thinking of moving it closer to the five solas entry, and perhaps adding material on post-Tridentine doctrines.
AlexKepler 22:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  My preference is to develop the "five soloas" in separate articles, link here to the summary article (which should remain brief and cursory), and delete the summary descriptions from this article leaving only a list of the five solas.  Mkmcconn — 22:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: "These sundry groupings, i.e. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and other sectarians, are characterized in part by a lack of apostolic succession, in the sense that their founders are not anointed successors of St. Peter"
introduced by 207.192.130.197, along with some traditional Catholic views of Protestant doctrine, later in the article? 
We may need a discussion of protestant views of apostolic succession (ranging from reformed rejection of the concept, to qualified high anglican acceptance - amplification welcome here), but a throw-away remark in the introduction is probably not the place. It also sits poorly with the preceding sentence, and its characterisation of protestant groups as "sectarians" is rather tendentious. Indeed it is too fimly rooted in Catholic terminology, assumptions and frames of reference for an article on Protestantism. - Paul 16:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV concerns 

message: Is there any rationale for the order of the names? It doesn't seem to be chronological, denominational, or alphabetical (by first or last name). Any preferences? I'd suggest alphabetical, since it's easier... Views, before I jump in? - Paul 16:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominent protestants 

message: I have added a section "Environmentalism and religion" to the Environmentalism article. Perhaps someone familiar with Protestant theology could add to it. --Erauch 19:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmentalism and religion 

message: I've added a dispute notice, because of the difficulties in the article in the presentation of Catholic theology.  This may be a POV dispute as well, and it may be appropraite to make it "totally disputed" instead--Samuel J. Howard 03:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
: The dispute notice says the article is factually disputed. Could you give any specific examples of bad or wrong facts in the article? Do you think it presents Catholic theology too favorably or too unfavorably? Wesley 05:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: The page's opening paragraph stated that Protestantism can be subdivided into "Reformed" and "Restorationist" camps; Methodism is neither.  Other groups could make the same claim.  I removed this inaccurate sentence.  KHM03 22:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subdivisions

message: Can "1 Definition, 2 Origins of Protestantism & 3 Basic theological tenets" be rationalised with the Protestant Reformation article and the links between the two articles made clear. Paul foord 07:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap/inconsistency  with [[Protestant Reformation]] article 

message: There is a new page for this topic which could use expansion by someone with expertise in that area. KHM03 11:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Radical Reformation]]

message: This is a judgement A Protestant holding a popular corruption of the Zwinglian view, not NPOV better A Protestant holding an extreme position, not sure how to reference Paul foord 16:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Changed. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - good Paul foord 17:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord's Supper