Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:06, 1 January 2006

Sin

I appreciate your edits on the page for Sin; it gives us "more room" to maneuver, make distinctions, and work. Thanks...good job. KHM03 17:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've noticed that many pages are in dire need of dissection. Far too many are a jumble. Let me know if there's more I can do to help. --Rekleov 15:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Means of Grace

This is a page which could use some attention by someone with a knowledge of Lutheran theology. KHM03 13:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take a look. --Rekleov 14:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Rekleov. Since all of the branches Christianity have held that sacraments are not mere symbols, except the Zwinglians, the Anabaptists, and others with a similar theory, I wonder if it might be more convenient to say something like this:

Except for those who concur with Zwingli's theory that the sacraments are mere symbols, all branches of Christianity have held that the sacraments cause their recipients to receive divine grace.

In putting it that way, Zwingli and the radicals, including many Reformed, along with most of vanilla evangelicalism, are out of the circle of the norm. What do you think? Otherwise, it seems to me that the list could get kind of long, and would become confusing when Mormons, the Church of Christ groups, and others are added to the list. What do you think? Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...we don't want to have a laundry list. The problem comes with the Reformed --- there are some, those closest to Calvin, who find that there is a Sacramental presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper (though they disagree with Rome, Wittenberg, and Constantinople on Christ's *physical* presence in the LS); then there are the Zwinglians and those effectively Zwinglian --- or who simply embrace the sacraments as mandated, or as expressions of unity or somesuch. If it weren't for the first group of Reformed, it would be easy. Hmmm... Where do you want to put this in the article? That would definitely make a difference. Thanks!

I'm not sure, but I was thinking that it could replace the sentence where it occurs:

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and Lutherans hold 
that sacraments are not mere symbols, but cause their recipients to 
receive divine grace.

Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. The only phrase I'd like to massage, however, is the "cause their recipients..." --- do they cause them to receive grace, or do they actually bring grace along with them? I think on the Grace-delivery side would vote for the latter. --Rekleov 18:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The wording of that can be improved. "God actually confers his grace to ... by means of ... " that sort of thing, would be closer. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lutheran Eucharist

I have heard it said that Lutheran Eucharistic theology is best termed "ubiquitarianism", not "consubstantiation" (a term which you also refute). Have you heard the term ubiquitarianism used? I think I read it in Stookey's book Eucharist, but am not certain. KHM03 18:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No...I have not heard that term used. I will have to look into it. -Rekleov 01:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Luther Page Rewrite Discussion on

See the Luther page talk. --CTSWyneken 01:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Real Presence

Drboisclair and CTSWyneken have been making a lot of edits in the "Lutheran" section of this article. It all looks good to me (albeit, a United Methodist), but I thought you'd enjoy a peek at the latest edits. KHM03 12:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther and the Jews

Isolani, could you do me a favor and look in on the Talk page of Martin Luther and the Jews? I'm trying to keep this page balanced and accurate. It is proving very difficult, since I'm the sole Lutheran voice here at the moment. Would you examine my posts and tell me if I'm crazy or unreasonable? --CTSWyneken 02:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Infant Baptism

I'll take a look. If I can find time to help, I will, although I'm a bit tied up with a user who only wants to make Luther into the source-of-all anti-semitism. --CTSWyneken 15:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

After a quick review, it seems that the overall content is OK. But I agree we could tweak quite a bit. Compared to the Martin Luther and the Jews article, this should be a cake walk to keep everyone happy. --CTSWyneken 15:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the Luther Page Revert

Thanks for the help! Would you do me the favor of weighing in on the talk page? Of course, why do you want to get insulted like the rest of us? Happy New Year! --CTSWyneken 03:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)