Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:12, 20 January 2007

/Archive May 20, 2006

"Explanation" vs. "Exposition"

It is more accurate to speak of the Lutheran confessional writings as giving an exposition of Scripture rather than an explanation. "Exposition" means a "setting forth" while "explanation" has more of the connotation of "talking about something." The Lutheran Confessions do not talk about Scriptural doctrine, they set them forth. I don't think that exposition is that sophisticated a word.--Drboisclair 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please leave the link to creeds in the definition

Lutherans consider their confessional writings to be creeds, so I think that it is appropriate to leave this reference in this paragraph. The writings of the 16th and 17th Century dogmaticians could also be defined as simply making statements about Lutheran doctrine. The Lutheran confessional writings have more formal authority.--Drboisclair 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You are just going to confuse readers. Lutherans do NOT regard the Lutheran Confessions on the same level as the Creeds proper. Ptmccain 23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that idea from? I know that the Confessions have a descending order of importance from the Apostles Creed to the Formula, but what is your authority for saying this? Please remember that this is a joint venture. We don't have to dumb things down here.--Drboisclair 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that we are on the same page here. The Lutheran symbolical books, AC, Ap, etc. were not considered creeds as were the Apostolicam, the Nicenoconstantinopolitanum, and the Athanasiam. SDG!--Drboisclair 19:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Creeds?

Confessional Lutherans certainly do consider the Lutheran Confessions to be equal to the three Ecumenical Creeds. Equally true, equally binding. What is at issue, exactly?

--Uac1530 06:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Issue was simply which word to use "exposition" or "explanation."Ptmccain 11:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessary to turn this article into a stub

The excising of information of this article turns it into a mere stub. There is disagreement as to essential and non essential here.--Drboisclair 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Overformatting

There is no good reason that I know of to bold and italicize every (less two) instance of The Book of Concord in this article. Discussion? Keesiewonder 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I started to change it. Have at it. Justas Jonas 13:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving Article without Discussion

Please elaborate on the article movement war that seems to have started. Keesiewonder 13:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes more sense to title it this way. More descriptive and will make it easier for folks to find. Keesie, you do not have to stalk me on Misplaced Pages, do you? Since you've only been editing since last November or so, I'm sure you might not be aware of the Misplaced Pages guideline on harassment, but you really need to read it and follow it. WP:Harassment. Thanks. Justas Jonas 13:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)