User talk:Epiphyllumlover

Welcome!

Hello, Epiphyllumlover, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Lutheranism WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Lutheranism. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

Barnstars

Please stop by and give your opinion on the two proposed barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Mayerhoff.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Mayerhoff.JPG. The copy called Image:Mayerhoff.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 03:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HST of X-tian Views on Contraception

I just wanted to let you know that the motivation behind my edits was to remove the impression that Anglicanism is a Protestant denomination in the same way Lutheranism is. As I would assume that you know, Anglicans consider themselves both Protestant and Catholic...the "middle way" and all that.

To the extent that the article has or had a RCC POV to it, I agree. But that had nothing to do with myself or any of my edits. I used the phrasing "Other Christian denominations" only because the article had all denominations, including Anglicans, under the title "Protestant". It was not any attempt to make Catholism the standard and other denominations some lesser collection of subgroups.

Also, do any other denominations have a magisterium in the manner that Catholics do? Again, that was there when I first started work on the article, the words are not mine. But as far as I know, Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians come the closest to Catholics in terms of leadership. And the difference is still rather stark as that the RCC has a Pontiff with supreme jurisdiction over every RCC in the world. Where as in the other two churches, each country's Presiding Bishop oversees their own Church with no international interference.

Of lesser importance, do you object to Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterians being listed under a "Protestant" label? They all are self-indentifying Protestants, are they not, even the most high-church Lutherans? Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites are all Protestant to the extent that they descend from Anabaptist traditions, do they not?

And do they think someone can do something about those poor Mormons. I read the talk history and I understand the Nicene creed point. But surely they deserve better than just "other".

Thanks!

SacredSpermWhale (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Catholicism

Well done! What a clever Lutheran. Quand le jour se lève les ténèbres s'évanouissent. (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of Antichrist as the Leader of the Western World

I find it somewhat disingenuous that the repeated removal of the "base of Antichrist" being the leadership of the Western World somewhat disturbing--it is repeatedly removed from the discussion - this interpretation of Holy Writ has become so pervasive throughout the world, that to omit these discussions must be viewed as editorial prejudice? Doug Krieger (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)kriegerdwmDoug Krieger (talk)[reply]

I am fine with a futurist explaination of the Antichrist in the article. In the past, I have added some futurist info--see the section in the article titled "Early Church". I deleated your paragraph because you violated Wikipedia:No original research by writing about the ideas you have developed in your own book. Some other user or users messed with other text that was directly sourced and substantially changing the meaning. That rendered the old sources untruthful to the new text, so I had to undo their changes. If you want to add a dispensationallist section, I suggest you derive and source it from a scholarly journal published by a dispensationallist seminary.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irresistible grace

Please lend your thoughts to Talk:Irresistible grace#Calvinist vs. Lutheran view. Cheers! --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bucer

Hello, the Martin Bucer FAC was archived. In my opinion, this was closed too early. I have renominated it; would you please vote or leave a comment on the new FAC? See Talk:Martin Bucer and click on "leave comments". Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of {{ImageStackRight}}

Hi,

Regarding the comment you made here: the {{stack}} template is the modern replacement for {{ImageStackRight}} and can be used for the same purpose. {{ImageStackRight}} is less flexible and is redundant to that template, hence its coming replacement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheranism

I disagree with with about the Bible section in Lutheranism. Listing the orthodox view gives the impression that it is the view for all Lutherans. It is not. All Lutherans agree that the Bible is the Word of God, but there is much disagreement about what that means. KitHutch (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From CRAZY TALK: A NOT SO STUFFY DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS published by Augsburg Books (of the ELCA), "The 'Word of God' refers to (1) Jesus, God's word to us (see John 1: 1-4); (2) the Bible; and (3) any spoken witness that the Holy Spirit uses to create faith ..." I think our disagreement is about what we mean the Word of God to be. Just because the Bible is the Word of God doesn't mean that everything in it is literally true. The Bible is filled with folklore, metaphors, poems, adventure stories, history, and other types of literature. While they are not all literarlly true, all tell us something about God and His interaction with His people. KitHutch (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CC vs RCC

I noticed your earlier opposition to the renaming of Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church, in case you're interested, a new debate has started about renaming the current wiki article "Catholic Church" back to "Roman Catholic Church", you can find the debate at Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antichrist (historicism)

I think it's a good idea to have an entry on Antichrist (historicism) apart from just Antichrist. The first refers to a term found in Scripture and accepted in the canons of all Churches, while the second refers to a peculiar Reformation doctrine spread by Luther and Calvin which had its origins in the Western Schism of the Middle Ages. It seems better to arrange it this way, given that only a minority of Protestants still hold to the historicist interpretation, while most have switched to alternative views such as futurism or dispensationalism. ADM (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Antichrist article had a substantial description of the history behind the historicist position, I hardly see the need for an article splice, given that the article is well under 100kb. I would much rather see a Futurist add to the history of the futurist position. I am not capable of doing this myself, given that I am ignorant of the Futurist viewpoint's history prior to the Schofield Reference Bible. Perhaps you could add it? In addition, the unique views of the Eastern Church deserve explaination, but likewise I'm not well read enough to write the section. Issues of undue weight are better fixed by adding more to the other points of view than by removing sourced material.

In your comment, you claimed that Historicism is a minority view among Protestants. I was under the impression that Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists tend to be historicist, while Baptists, Church of God, Church of Christ, and Pentacostals tended to be Futurist. While there are more Baptists in America than any other Protestant Church, when you look at at the situation globally, there are more Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists than Baptists, Church of God, Church of Christ, and Pentacostals.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans are not historicist, that is for sure, given that they have long had ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church. In general, any Protestant organization that engages in ecumenical relations with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity must have long abandoned historicism, because you can't reasonably dialogue with someone whom you believe to be the Antichrist. Given this information, the Lutheran World Federation isn't historicist, and neither is the calvinistic Baptist World Alliance, or the World Council of Churches for that matter. There are probably a minority of Baptists, a minority of Lutherans and a minority of Pentecostals who still are though, along with various non-trinitarian groups. Even if that does sound like a minority, it's still a substantial minority of people that adds up in the millions of adherents. ADM (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a narrow definition of historicism. Historicism is merely the interpretation of Revelation as dealing with events throughout history, not just the end of the end-times. In contrary to your statement that those that dialogue with Rome cannot believe that the Pope is the antichrist (a claim made by some historicists), the Missouri Synod has dialogued constructively with official talks with Rome together with the LWF for over a generation now and the LCMS doctrine hasn't changed since then. Rome must be more tolerant of the view than it used to be.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is because LCMS dialogue with the Vatican has been deliberately kept at a strict minimum by its conservative leaders, such as Gerald B. Kieschnick. For instance, the LCMS never did sign the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, as most Lutheran bodies did. I suspect that if the LCMS did sign the Joint Declaration and did participate in all the interfaith meetings such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America does, there would be strong pressures both from within and from outside the Synod to do away with the papal antichrist doctrine. I'm refering here to historicism as it has historically been understood by most Protestants, with all its associated symbology of the Man of Sin, the Beast, the Whore of Babylon, which have been deliberately used to target the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you advocate that all the other possibilities for the Antichrist should also be given a separate article, for example, "Antichrist (futurism)", "Antichrist (dispensationalism)", "Antichrist (orthodox)", "Antichrist (preterism)"? Who is going to write all these articles? Why would anyone visit them?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advocate it unless a substantial amount of material was added on the subject. If it were, I would say why not?, but that hasn't beeen done yet. I am thinking about adding some content on futurism, so maybe it will be done eventually. The important thing is that the article is properly categorized, so there are enough categories that link to it. The historicist doctrine is arguably among the most notable of such teachings, and so it deserves special attention because it has deep roots that in the writings of the Reformers, as well as in the medieval period. ADM (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luther's canon

Given that no Lutheran scholarly book that I've read believes Martin Luther advocated a closed canon for the New Testament, I find an article titled, "Luther's canon" preposterous. Specifically, Luther advocated an open canon, with a consideration of the distinctions between Homologoumena & Antilegomena, simply noting which books had been termed as such by the Church Fathers (although following Erasmus in not including 2nd Peter as antilegomena, given that he thought Jude was an extract of it and not vice-versa). Catholics often argue that Luther set a canon because this allows them to say he put himself over Scripture, but that is their POV about Luther. This article at the present is an essay for the Catholic point of view.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Luther advocated a closed or open canon is probably a separate question, this article merely describes the canon that is attributed to Luther, and which is consequently used by Lutherans and others. Since the Lutheran canon hasn't really evolved since the time of Luther, I suppose that suggests that Lutherans haven't yet adopted an open canon and have essentially stuck to what they believe is Luther's canon. ADM (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syncretistic controversy

I don't think the content of syncretistic controversy should be fully included within the article syncretism because it contains too much specific information, as opposed to the much broader phenomenon of mixing religions and beliefs together. This peculiar Lutheran affair happened centuries ago, in the 1600s, and so it should be treated as a primarily historical matter that occured in a very regional context, i.e. between Protestant churches in Northern Germany. ADM (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Indulgence
		For your many contributions on Lutheranism-related articles, I award you this beautiful Barnstar of Indulgence! Shark96z (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An individual does not speak for a whole

Please revise this change. It hardly seems like a theological statement has been made by this organization. One official has doubted a sentiment. That is not 'approval' of the sentiment. Plus the 'approval' mentioned is a supposition by one person, the mentioned McAllister (in last paragraph quoted below).

"Oh you're not quitting," she said, waving her hand dismissively. "You haven't lost your faith."

"Um, yeah I have," McAllister said. "This is for real."

The bishop shook her head. For the church elders, McAllister's revelations simply did not compute.

"They're either in complete denial," he says, "or they're completely comfortable with the idea that they have a pastor who's a fraud, as long as he puts asses in the seats."

There's so much wrong in going from this passage to your statement. Probably you should remove the change entirely. Shenme (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section I edited was referring to the diversity of positions within the ELCA--not their official positions. Actually, many Christian scientists believe in atheistic evolution along with theistic Christianity. If you read the scholarship in the science and religion field there are different schools of thought. The "theistic evolution" position only encompases the "cooperation between religion & science" camp. There are many that instead feel that there is no place for God in science and that God did not direct or influence evolution in any detectable way. However, I didn't have a specifically ELCA reference for it (until a new study that I am anticipating comes out in perhaps half a year or so). So I had to use the Psycology Today reference. I edited it to reflect that he is a "former" pastor.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Christus austreibt.JPG

File:Christus austreibt.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Christus austreibt.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Christus austreibt.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving a talk page

Hi there. Discussion between September 2007 and December 2008 is now archived in Talk:Lutheranism/Archive 4. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Efficacy

Thanks for adding the Lutheran use of efficacy to efficacy. I watch that as a user of the other terms and am interested to learn one I hadn't known. I find the language unfamiliar and hard to navigate. For example, Scripture, capitalized, must be something more specific than scripture. But how would a reader like me know what is meant? Can we link some of the specialized terms to appropriate other articles? Then I'd be better able to understand what's written and might have more suggestions.

One suggestion right away is that the reference numbering should be one number per source. If it's a list of five references for one topic, each gets its own ref and /ref tag. Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on this. I'm not opposed to capitalizing Scripture--it might even be useful in distinguishing between the general concept and the specific set. It would be great if it could be capitalized and linked to a section of an article that was specifically about what Lutherans consider Scripture. Your list of other terms to clarify and/or link looks really good.

I meant to say one source per number, not one number per source. Does that make sense now? --Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Americanman095 (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

translation impossible?

There is a discussion going on whether the name of that German church body can be translated or not (it appears like this on the english pages of this church's homepage). One user changed the name of this Church (actually a federation of several Lutheran, United and Reformed churches) and it's regional member churches to the German form because he says their names can't get translated. so the article on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria now appears under its German name because he says the "concept" can't be translated into English. Please go to the discusson page of the Evangelical Church in Germany and have your say --93.130.249.56 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]