Talk:Fundamentalist–modernist controversy

message: How is this article longer than the entire article on Presbyterianism?
>  I didn't write the article on Presbyterianism.  I did write this article.  Maybe I got carried away.  Sorry about that.  
When I read the article now, I guess it does include some stuff that's not of general interest...but, on the other hand, so far as I know the facts are all correct, so, why don't we err on the side of over-inclusion?
* Is this debate exclusive to Presbyterianism?  This article is linked from Southern Baptist Convention, among others and the section Legacy of the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy implies that the debate was "played out" in other denominations. --Tim4christ17 talk 03:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: No one has actually yet challenged me about my denominational classifications, but I'd like to pre-empt that by clarifying the relationship between the PCUSA in the article and the current PCUSA:
Coming out of the 19th century, American Presbyterians were split between Northern Presbyterians - known as the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) - and the Southern Presbyterians - known as the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS).  There were also other smaller Presbyterian denominations which had separated from the two big Presbyterian denominations for various reasons.
In 1936, conservatives left the PCUSA to form the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).  
In 1958, the PCUSA merged with the smaller United Presbyterian Church of North America (UPCNA) to form the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA)
In 1973, conservatives left the PCUS to found the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
The UPCUSA merged with the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) in 1983, and the new denomination took the old name  aof Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA).
Adam_sk 02:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Denominational Clarification

message: It has recently been pointed out to me (with supporting evidence here) that the pre-1958 denomination was called the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, abbreviated PCUSA, whereas the present denomination is called the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), abbreviated PC(USA).  A bit of a technicality, but I'll edit the page to reflect that.
Adam_sk 10:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Clarification

message: You write:Buck confirmed that she rejected the doctrine of original sin, the finality of Christianity and the need for missionaries to found churches.  Furthermore, she seemed to deny the divinity of Christ and even the importance of his historical reality.Isn't this Machen's characterizations of her speech? Shouldn't this section be framed to make that clear and provide some balanced explication on the meaning and intent of her positions instead of framing them only in terms of the conservative viewpoint?   ∴ Therefore  talk   16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pearl S. Buck 

message: You write:Then, in a January 1933 speech before a large audience at the Astor Hotel, later published in Harper's,According to Peter Conn's Pearl S. Buck: A Cultural Biography the date of the speech was November 2, 1932 (p. 148). I think you have this date confused with the Harper's publication which was the January 1933 edition. If you don't have a source that says otherwise, I'm going to correct this.   ∴ Therefore  talk   18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Pearl S. Buck's Astor Hotel speech 

message: Could you please provide a citation for: "he hoped she might yet be won back to the missionary cause." I'm still researching but this seems an unusual thing to say about an active missionary. So far I have found these quotes from the Rev. Edrman. April 13:The name of Mrs. Buck was the only one, among 1,500 missionaries under the direction of the board which Dr. Machen mentioned to support his charge that the board was not loyal in its adherence....On April 17, Rev. Erdman "pointed out that Mrs. Buck, as a missionary, would be welcome to the meeting...." April 18, 1933:Dr. Machen is trying to reform this foreign board, and there is no basis for his attack. He has an obsession as to orthodoxy and modernism. Whether Mrs. Buck is right or wrong we regret the use of her name as a point of attack against the board. Thoughts?   ∴ Therefore  talk   05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erdman response 

message: :Image:Fosdick Time.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fosdick Time.jpg

message: I am not an expert on the church of 1910, but the Presbyterian General Assembly has always been the church's legislative body. That is its primary function. It does also oversee the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, the highest judicial body; it also oversees the executive offices.
More information about GA structure is available in the Book of Order.
I have deleted the sentence in the "Doctrinal Deliverance" section that says the GA is not a legislative body.
Hreichgott (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The General Assembly is primarily a legislative body 

message: Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions has been a stub for some time now, and the information found there could be incorporated into this article. To facilitate development of both pages, and provide context for the source page, I recommend a merge. --JFHutson (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: Well-written and conceived article, rare for these pages, but it is short on the history prior to the later 19th c with the result that it confuses the issue.  The New Side represented the rise of free grace in Congregationalism, and is the true parent of liberalism, not of fundamentalism, tho indeed fundamentalism itself gets off on a tangent in response.  The real question here is between truth and relativism, true conversion and a sort of behaviorism.  This can also be seen in the New England Theology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.32.105 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Side-Old Side 

message: In the context of paragraph two, the use of this example in the second sentence is anachronistic as Liberty University was not founded during the period under discussion (viz., prior to the 1970s). The founding (1971) and development of Liberty University belong to a later phase of resistance to Modernism -- last sentence in this paragraph.  A possible way to fix this issue is to move the reference so as to create a sentence along the lines of: "This would remain the state of affairs until the 1970s, when conservative Christianity reemerged, resulting in resurgence of traditional Christianity among the Baptist, Presbyterians and others, as well as in the founding of new institutions such as Liberty University." Regent University (founded 1977)could be another example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.115.38 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberty University 

message: This is a run-on sentence whose meaning has been overwhelmed by its complexity and grammatical issues: "By requiring the cultural and social concept of Christian fundamentalism and how powerful God in everlasting righteousness related to Christmas,[20][21] and among other things to celebrate in too extremist and very exaggerated in the rest of the world to predominate the Christianities impose the New Year[22] and strictly respect the tradition Christian-centered and based on the concept of Christian fundamentalism and by far and make believe Christian ideology especially in the original sin and do impose relativism on the human and material moving away so the other religions of the world and takes the concepts related to the Bible where and against Freemasonry in the concept of relativism and Christian fundamentalism it based on the concepts in an integral tradition of the Christian religion and also the criticism and scorn of Christian fundamentalism.[23]"  Could someone able to understand it split it up so that its meaning can be clear to the general reader?  Or perhaps just delete it (on the grounds that it may not be neutral)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.115.38 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concluding Sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510053140/http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/jgmorigin.htm to http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/jgmorigin.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think that we should remove the interpretive text by unregistered 'editor' from 79.56.187.43. MaynardClark (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretive text by unregistered 'editor' from 79.56.187.43 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001104617/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/gray-essay-what-is-darwinism to http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/gray-essay-what-is-darwinism
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hey everybody.
I was reading through the page and noticed that the intro before the table of contents makes a distinction between fundamentalism and modernist/liberal Christianity up until the very end where suddenly there's mention of "traditional" Christianity.
Is "traditional Christainity" fundamentalist Christianity or is this a mention of a third group not already discussed in the intro? If this is about fundamentalism, who claims that? I expect this isn't a neutral point of view. I looked through the rest of the article for mentions of "traditional" and none of the mentions seemed to point to fundamentalism as "traditional Christianity". Could an editor already more familiar with the sources help me to understand so my tag can be removed? Is it a fact that "Christian fundamentalism" is traditional Christianity or is it an opinion (and whose opinion is it)? Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Traditional Christianity": Says who? Is this a fact or an opinion?