User talk:Ctobola

Welcome!

Hello, Ctobola, 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) 12:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at talk:Lutheranism

I am glad that you are aboard here to provide your input. Sharing your research on Lutheranism adds a different perspective. Being in the LCMS myself I can tell you that there is somewhat of a shift away from the conservatism of the 30 years prior to 2001. Our new leadership over the past half dozen years has seen to that.--Drboisclair 16:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lutheranism

Ctobola, thank you for your input on the Lutheranism article. However, I would kindly ask that you please stop your current discussion thread regarding User:CTSWyneken. It is very uncivil, and could be regarded as a personal attack. Please restrict your comments to the content of the article, and avoid speculation or accusations about the character of contributors.

What the LC-MS or WELS say on their websites is irrelevent to a conversation about another editor - CTS is not the LC-MS. Whether their positions are right or wrong is also irrelevent; they are what they are, and should be presented as such where it is appropriate for the encyclopedia to report such things. It is not appropriate to speculate on the connection between their corporate position and the character of a specific editor. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply on the article talk page. I hope that there are no hard feelings, and we can all continue to work together to improve wikipedia's coverage of Lutheranism. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

Please stop by and give your opinion on the two proposed barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "Holy" in the Lutheranism article

I believe, based on you most recent edits to Lutheranism, that it would be safe to say that you are not Lutheran yourself (please correct me if I am wrong in that interpretation). I will be reverting several of your deletions of the word "Holy". As far as Holy Communion goes, this is not a "high church POV" and yes there is a difference (click on the following link Communion but there is not a "unholy" version as you so state. Holy Communion is one of the sacraments. Communion in itself, more often, though it can and is used to refer to the sacrament, is a reference to the communion of saints which has nothing to do with the sacrament. There is also the term Full communion which is very different from Holy Comunion. Holy Baptism would be considered an acceptable term but today it is far more likely to be simply refered to as Baptism with absolutely no difference in the meaning of the term; which is not true for Holy Communion as stated above. Did you even bother to click on the revised link you inserted into the article Communion which in the context used in the article was a reference to Holy Communion is not linked to a page that starts out as saying:

Communion has several meanings within Christianity. It can refer to:

Communion (Christian), the relationship between Christians as individuals or Churches

The Communion of Saints, a doctrine of Christianity mentioned in the Apostles' Creed

A group of related Christian churches or denominations

The Eucharist, the rite that Christians perform in fulfillment of Jesus' instruction to do in memory of him what he did at his Last Supper

The Communion rite, that part of the Eucharistic rite in which the consecrated bread and wine are distributed to participants

Communion (chant), the Gregorian chant that accompanies this rite.

I have probably over expained. I did not revert all the reverences to "Holy". In cases where it did not add to or clarify the meaning of what followed I let the deletion stand. But in cases where it did make a difference in the meaning I reverted it. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting me. It is always dangerous to draw assumptions. I must admit that I did word things badly when it comes to communion. It is very true that the "Lord's Supper" is, more often than not, referred to as communion within the Lutheran Church today. But it is also true that the usage of the term communion can and is used to mean other things as well, also within the Lutheran church today. Therefore the context is very important. As you probably noted, most of the reference to "holy" that you removed were not reverted. But the term holy is still very much a part of the traditional Lutheran liturgy.

Your change of the title "The Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions" to "The Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions", I think was a very poor choice. Changing it to The Bible and the Lutheran Confessions" would be much better, though personally I would prefer the original title, I would have to agree that replacing it with "The Bible and the Lutheran Confessions" would be more fitting in today's culture and does not alter the meaning of the heading.

Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sacrmane

Not sure what is meant by this term, but it seems to be spelled incorrectly.

Many Lutherans also preserve a liturgical approach to the celebration of Communion (or the Lord's Supper), emphasizing the sacrmane as the central act of Christian worship.

see Lutheranism this is also posted on the article discussion page. Thank you for your input into the article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The resurrection of the body and the life everlasting in Lutheranism

As you can see in the article and the talk page I have been busy yesterday. I think that you are right that the sentence needs to be changed. I took the liberty of changing it in the body of the article. As it was it gave too much weight to the doctrine of the "Intermediate State," which is a doctrine subsidiary to the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body. I hope that corrects the imbalance that you saw in this article. I think that one can hold to the "resurrection-centrist" position that you have advocated without ruling out completely the "Intermediate State." From my research it appears that Lutherans always had believed in the Intermediate State until the 20th century when "higher criticism" cast doubt on the miraculous teachings of the Bible. The opposition to the Intermediate State comes from such "higher criticism" not from anything inherent in Lutheranism; however, that is one POV. I think that we are closer to agreement on this issue than it may appear.--Drboisclair 06:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom