Talk:History of Christian theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Calvinism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject History (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Theology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Thoughts[edit]

I have been thinking about this page a bit. I think the first matter is structural, i.e. identifying which phases of Christian thought to segment things into. The second is topical, i.e. what matters need discussion.

On (1) examples would be the apostolic preaching, post-apostolic fathers, post-nicene fathers, late antiquity, middle ages Latin and Greek, the Reformation, etc.

On (2), important topics would be the development of the creeds, christology & mariology (always related in antiquity), heresies, papal juristiction, east-west topics like the et filio and purgation, theology of the crusade, scholasticism, and so forth. I suppose doctrinal enforcement would be important also, i.e. the role of the Emperor, the place of the inquisition, and so on. I am rambling a bit, but I think we need to hammer out a structure first, then fill in the gaps. The current structure is a good start, but needs to reworking. Lostcaesar 12:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I have started acting on some of them but it is clearly a task that needs more than just me to work on. If you can help, it would be much appreciated.

Heresies[edit]

I have been pondering how best to treat heresies in this article. The breakout of "Early Heresies" as a separate section is a legacy from structure of the History of Christianity article. I don't know if we should have a major section on "Heresies" or if we should just spread the discussion of heresies throughout the chronologicial narrative.

--Richard 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


I do not believe that the Waldensians should be considered a heresy. They were early Protestants rather than a heresy.

The Trinity[edit]

Somehow, somewhere, we should highlight the doctrine of the Trinity and how the mainstream doctrine of the Trinity was developed. This is connected to Christology and the filioque but there's more to it than just that.

The critical point that I think we need to make is that the mainstream of Christianity is Trinitarian and that only offshoots like Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses do not subscribe to the Trinitarian doctrine.

--Richard 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Organization[edit]

Yes, I do think that this is article is a good idea. I would say that there are really 2 options for organization: (1) primarily Chronological, and (2) primarily Topical. The article as it is organized right now is neither, or rather, both.

If the intention is to go chronological, then remove topical organizations, and make the article division primarily about dates. For Example:

  • Emerging (Pre-Nicene) Christian Theological Developments (30-315)
  • Nicaea to Chalcedon (315-450)
  • etc

If the intention is to go topic, then descibe the major developments under topical headings, arranged (very roughly) chronologically. And change the title to "Development of Christian theology", with divisions:

  • Events in the development of the Canon
  • Events in the development of Trinitarianism
  • Events in the development of Christology
  • etc.

The Christian theology article, it seems to me, has been trying to do both of these things, plus describing the different schools of theology and theological controversies. There is room, in my mind, for both a chronology and a description of the development. I think you are better off with the chronological method for this particlar article.

Further, consider starting with a slightly narrower focus. Maybe starting with pre-Great Schism or pre-Reformation, and broading the focus as the article develops. Hope all this helps. -- Pastordavid 21:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Evangelical protestants[edit]

The article is too focused on evangelical protestants, who are not the same as Arians or Nestorians and Albigenses, and who are a minority now even in places like Switzerland, Australia or England. The US is one of the only countries which has a significant amount of evangelicals, and so it appears that the article is too focused on the typical bible belt history of theology. 69.157.241.150 (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Christian theology[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Christian theology's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "vatican.va":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 04:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History of Christian theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Christian theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)