Talk:Sola scriptura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. Sola scriptura is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. Calvinism Portal Sola scriptura falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Christian rebuttal link removed, link no longer exists. Seemingly the entire domain is missing. An Orthodox Christian rebuttal to Sola scriptura (Richardault (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Roman Catholic position

I edited the section on the Roman Catholic position, and Secisek reverted my changes with the comment "Article is not of excessive length nor doe this fail WP:UNDUE, discuss removeal on talk page." So here we are.

I redacted the text, not because the article was overly long or gave undue weight to the RC position, but because it was not neutrally written and rather rambling (note that this does not necessarily say anything about the rest of the article one way or the other, but it is true here). Moreover, the current text is essentially a verbatim text dump from the Catholic Encyclopedia with citations but without quotation marks. That work, while certainly admissible as a primary source on the Catholic position, is not neutral in its treatment of this topic (e.g., "As immediate, implicit submission of the mind was in the lifetime of the Apostles the only necessary token of faith, there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment. This is quite clear from the words of Scripture [quotation follows]...."), and thus the text of that work should not be quoted as an objective statement of the facts.

Hence, I propose that we restore my redacted version and further adjust it to note direct quotations etc. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The section is on the Roman Catholic position and is expected to be from their POV. I don't feel really strongly about this, but I ran across the Catholic Encyclopedia article and thought this section would be a great addition here. Any other oppinions? -- SECisek 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is not neutrally worded. If we were to say, "The Catholic Encyclopedia says, 'Catholicism is right and Protestantism is a bunch of hogwash.'", well that's fine. The problem is when it is stated objectively without quotation marks, as in the example I quoted above. My edits neutralized it. They also shortened the content a bit, since, as I say, it rather rambles. Encyclopedic style in the Wikipedia is a bit different than in the CE, and the focus is a bit different here. In short, we need to summarize the Catholic position concisely in more neutral terms, and leaving aside the issue of quotations that are not marked as such, I think my edits did that better than the current text. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be quite clear that this is not fact but the POV of the Roman Catholic church: "Roman Catholics, on the other hand, argue", "The Roman Catholic Church does not deny", "is thought by Roman Catholics to be immovable", "The Roman Catholic position is", "In the Roman Catholic view", "Rome attributes them" and so on. As for the quality of the prose, it can be improved, but I dont see a POV problem here. -- SECisek 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a few more edits to clarify things in the hope of more neutrality. I really have to agree with Flex. I'm not advocating deleting if it can be neutral. Just because the header is the "Roman Catholic Postition", doesn't leave room for sermonizing on the subject by the CE or anyone else.Brian0324 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, how can a section on the Roman Catholic position not discuss the Roman Catholic position? Full disclousre: I am not a Roman Catholic in any way, shape, or form. I just found this info interesting and thought we should include it. -- SECisek 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course a section entitled "Roman Catholic Position" should discuss the Roman Catholic position on the issue in question. The issue is, as I am understanding the discussion here (and have seen happen in other places) how said information is presented. The 1913 CE has some great info, but it never works to cut and paste directly into wikipedia, because (1) it is written from (and for) a very specific POV, and (2) its age presents further problems of style and POV. The information should be used, but rewritten in a more neutral style and tone. Pastordavid 20:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)`

To make another point, I removed this statement which is nothing more than a criticism of the Protestant movement - "The divisions, not only between sect and sect but within the same sect, have become a byword". It followed the quote by Newman which essentially argued the same thing. It's just not WP policy to allow a POV being added without citation.Brian0324 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pastordavid, some wordsmith needs to be bold. -- SECisek 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was bold, and you reverted it. ;-) --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair play. No, this has been a good discussion! -- SECisek 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So do you consent to restore my edited version, which I daresay is still considerably better as far as the Wikipedia is concerned? --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If User:Brian0324 and user:Pastordavid agree I will respect consensus. Again, it doesn't mean that much to me.

For my two cents, I think Flex presents a neutral re-write of the material from CE, and think it is a go. Pastordavid (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't following this and I just made a large series of edits here. Please review and feel free to change. I admit that I only quickly attempted to make SECisek's additions neautral, but it probably doesn't read very smoothly.Brian0324 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to revert to Flex's changes, and you all agree that it was improvement, I won't object, be bold. Discussion always wins the day! -- SECisek (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious POV problem with the last two sentences on the Catholic position, dont you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.51.243 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)