Talk:Scholastic Lutheran Christology
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
POV in twofold state section
The section states that a certain religious doctrine is true and that a certain interpretation of the Bible is right. To me, the very essence of POVness. Please make it more neutral if you know more about theology than I do. -- 85.179.127.44 (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge discussion
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Consensus was to not merge.
Extra calvinisticum 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) 14:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - This article itself is supposed to be about Scholastic Lutheran Christology, not about Calvinist Christology. The Extra calvinisticum is a Calvinist doctrine, just because the label applied to it originated in Lutheran Scholasticism does not mean that the content belongs in an article about a different system. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps communicatio idiomatum is a better place? What we really need is Reformed scholasticism, but I'm not holding my breath. --JFHutson (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't think so. The Extra calvinisticum is specifically a denial of the full communicatio idiomatum... that article is not much longer either. Why would we merge an article that is almost the same length and is a denial of the main point of the article, into it? It's fine as a stub as it is. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps communicatio idiomatum is a better place? What we really need is Reformed scholasticism, but I'm not holding my breath. --JFHutson (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per ReformedArsenal. I would love to see a Reformed scholasticism article. StAnselm (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.