Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:23, 2 June 2006

Popular Culture

On September 20, 1987, a strategical blunder committed in an NFL game led to a particularly distinctive parody of the sign being created: The Cincinnati Bengals led the San Francisco 49ers by six points in the closing seconds of a game played at Cincinnati's Riverfront Stadium; faced with a fourth down in their own territory, Bengals head coach Sam Wyche called a running play. The 49ers had no timeouts remaining, and it was Wyche's belief that this play would successfully run out the clock. However, Wyche overlooked the fact that under NFL rules, the clock is automatically stopped on any play that results in a change of possession - and that is what occurred on this play as the Bengals did not gain enough yardage on it to obtain a first down. There were six seconds remaining when the clock was stopped; the 49ers then took possession of the ball, and on the ensuing play Joe Montana threw a touchdown pass to Jerry Rice, and the successful extra point attempt that followed gave San Francisco a 27-26 victory.

I read this about 4times and tried to figure out how this relates to John 3:16. And I couldnt find a reason. Explain, please

The ensuing paragraph relates that one. Not very well though.--Will2k 15:48, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

== The people likely to display the Bible reference at sporting events are better described as Evangelicalists with their emphasis on biblically-oriented and personally experienced faith. In other branches of Christianity, such as Catholicism and the Orthodox Church, tradition plays a great role (a scientist would use the term "the literature" for "tradition"), and followers of these other branches would find the verse on its own meaningless and out-of-context.

"Accurate summary of central dogmata"

First debate

The article states ...so briefly (and accurately) summarizes the central dogmata of the Christian faith.

I have issues with the (and accurately) interjection (leaving aside the issue of whether individual verses of the christians' bible should be listed in a general world encyclopedia). From whose Point of View is this accurate? Which sects of christian belief cite it and which deny it? In what way is this "accurate" from the point of view of non-christians (and non-christians make up the majority of our readers)?

As an aethist (to declare an interest), I do not accept accuracy statements relating to any religious texts unless further, non-religious, sources can be quoted. This is my personal and declared opinion so people responding should please question the idea rather than question the questioner. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought the same thing honestly, when reading this article before making my post to the AfD discussion. and accurately should probably go... I know that the issue of salvation has been at the center of controversy for centuries (see Predestination for starters) so I think it's certainly POV to say that John 3:16 accurately reflects what every christian believes. I think citing a source or two could be helpful, if anyone wants to dig one up. --W.marsh 22:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently all people involved in this discussion come from the other AfD... Anyway, I also dispute that the verse summarizes the central dogmata of Christianity. Who said that? These are two central dogmaota, but only ones exists, as far as I know. I therefore propose to change the second sentence of the introduction into:It has been called ... because it is considered a summary of two central dogmata of Christianity: the humanity and the sacrifice of Christ This would also be a slight simplification. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how much we should wait here for people to join the discussion, but since a week has passed and nobody else has commented, I will implement my proposal and remove the pov tag. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Second debate

Sorry, but I want to re-open this issue. The text currently reads as follows:

It has been called the "Bible in a nutshell" because it is considered a summary of two central dogmata of Christianity: the humanity and the sacrifice of Christ.

I have two objections:

1. What Christian group considers the humanity of Christ to be "one of the two central dogmata" of their faith? Almost all Christian groups believe that Jesus was both God and man. Some Christians believe Jesus was simply a man. But there haven't been any Christians who claimed that Jesus was not a man since the fourth century.

2. More importantly, in what possible way can you find the humanity of Christ in John 3:16? This verse refers to Christ as "God's only son" -- but I don't see why you think it implies he's human. Of course, other Bible passages make it clear that Jesus is human, but not this one.

My proposed revision is this:

It has been called the "Bible in a nutshell" by some Christians because it contains two dogmas that are central to the beliefs of the traditional Christian churches: the sacrifice of Christ, and the importance of faith in Christ.

This is more accurate, and by using the phrase "the traditional Christian churches" it avoids the inaccuracy of the earlier versions, since many 19th and 20th century churches don't accept these two doctrines.

Objections? Lawrence King 23:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Like you I have never really thought the introductory sentence of which you speak properly summarised the sort of doctrinal things which Christians see this verse as pointing towards. Encouraged by your proposing to revise it, I have gone for a radical reworking of this sentence. See if you think it accurately reflects the Christian doctines for which Christians consider this verse so rich in theology! Be bold. Brusselsshrek 13:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I like your additions, but made some alterations. When the Bible or the creeds refer to Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, this is referring to his generation from the father in eternity before time was created, not to his incarnation that took place in our human timeline. In other words, the second person of the Trinity would not be "Jesus" or "Christ" if there was no incarnation, but he would still be the Word of God, the Son of God, and indeed God.

And I'm not usually "bold" when altering something that looks like it has been debated previously.... perhaps a wiki-failing on my part? Lawrence King 23:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very glad that you linked to the relevant doctrinal detail. I hoped and knew this would happen. Following your lead, I've just also added the link to sola fide. I am very happy that at least this new structure enables the depth of the verse to be explained via links to the relevant doctrinal sections. Brusselsshrek 12:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The sentence (with your addition in red) now reads:

- being saved is based on belief or faith, rather than by works, a doctrine known as sola fide

With your addition, unfortunately this no longer belongs in a list of "some of the most important doctrines of Christianity", because it's now Protestant-specific.

The original phrasing, "saved based on belief or faith, rather than by works" is indeed part of the doctrine shared by all the historic Christian churches. For example, see the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

However, "sola fide" refers to a very similar-sounding doctrine: that Christians are "saved by belief or faith alone". This doctrine is held by the Lutheran church and most of the Reformation churches, but not by the Catholic or Orthodox churches. Catholics, for example, believe that this contradicts the letter of James (the only New Testament book to use the phrase "faith alone" in the Greek).

I changed it to this:

- being saved is based on belief or faith, rather than based on human works

Even though you said "be bold", I wanted to explain my reasons, because (1) my change is almost a reversion of your last change, and (2) I'm a Catholic Christian myself, and I'm also an NPOV fanatic, so I thought it wouldn't hurt to have a second set of eyes look over my change! Does this look okay to you? Lawrence King 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very happy to drop the whole "sola-fide" thing. I think it is important to make sure that the links only point to what the verse actually does state or imply, rather than bringing in all sorts of other things (which may or may not be supported elsewhere in scripture). I therefore can only support the linking purely to "faith"; this is certainly how the verse says we are saved, and certainly any conclusion of whether this is by faith alone or includes works is beyond the scope of this verse, and so from a NPOV stance it is correct that such debate be left for elsewhere. I have not looked, but I am sure that the sola fide and other similar pages display with full vigour each side of this obviously very important discussion. Brusselsshrek 10:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Just to clarify what I was saying: I'm not saying that we have to stick exactly to what's in the verse itself, because this section opens with the phrase "It has been called the 'Bible in a nutshell' because it is considered a summary of some of the most important doctrines of Christianity." To me, this phrase doesn't claim that these doctrines are necessarily found in the verse; it just claims that these doctrines "are considered" to be found in the verse. So I don't object to any reference to "works" on this grounds. My objection is on the grounds of the phrase "some of the most important doctrines in Christianity" -- which, to be NPOV, should remain limited to doctrines that the major mainstream denominations would agree on.

And yes, the sola fide page has endless debates. I'm trying to avoid that sort of things these days (too much of a wiki-holic....) Lawrence King 20:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Third debate

...that whosoever... - that the salvation is open to all

This is partisan in that is assumes one of two points, or possibly both: 1.) That the word "whosoever" implies ability on the part of all. But it doesn't. If I say "whoever runs up the hill will get a dollar," that doesn't mean that the "dollar is open to all," including my paraplegic neighbor. 2.) That "world" always, only has a single denotative referent, namely "every single individual ever." But it doesn't. See John 7:7, 17:9, 1 John 5:19. These two assumptions are contested by a significant contigent of conservative Christianity (viz., Calvinists, tracing back to the later Augustine's interpretation of the passage).

My suggestion is:

...that whosoever... - that salvation is open to all who will believe

This should be acceptable by all parties. » MonkeeSage « 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected, I've made the change. » MonkeeSage « 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

UserBox

Have you guys seen this? Template:User John316