Talk:Theology of Martin Luther

What is the purpose of this article?

CTS, perhaps you can explain on the Martin Luther talk page what you hope to accomplish by creating what appears to be a mirror image of Martin Luther.--Mantanmoreland 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is to develop this page into a detailed discussion of Martin Luther's theology. I began by copying the material from the justification section on the Luther page and several other theology pages. With this in place, I hope to trim the section on the main Luther page, along with moving more material from other sections on the Luther page. Then I hope to trim the Luther page further. Finally, I hope to work on this page (as the edit summaries show) to unify and expand this page. All of this I've been urging for weeks on the Luther page that we do, in keeping with the standards at WP:FA. I kind of thought that was fairly transparent. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is already a detailed discussion of Luther's theology in Martin Luther. I don't see the point of this duplicative article, unless the Martin Luther article is to be cut way back, and that's obviously not happening. "I want another article on Martin Luther" is not a good enough reason for this article's existence.--Mantanmoreland 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is well-established practice to take large sections on complicated articles, shorten them a good deal in the main article, and then put the full section into it's own article, otherwise, many articles would become much too large. City articles in particular suffer from this problem, and many large Religion articles are also affected, look at Berlin or Christianity for examples. If detailed sections were not spun out of articles when the sections got too big, you might be seeing 200 kb long articles. The reason I suspect CTS made this article was precisely because it was already very detailed in the Martin Luther article, if sections get too big, they start wandering farther and farther into too many things and get much too swollen. Homestarmy 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention Jesus. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the main article is grossly too long and that is precisely my point. Only today,User:RelHistBuff attempted to make cuts in Martin Luther and was reverted. I reinstated the cuts and ran into a brick wall of opposition. Not even the blockquote here [1] was allowed to be removed by the two editors dominating the Martin Luther article. It is now in both the main article and this one. This article only makes sense if the main article is cut, with the cut portions moved, not copied, to this one. If this is just an echo of the main article then in my view it should be deleted.--Mantanmoreland 02:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, even though the editor who made the first invited me to completely revert the section, I did not. I restored the blockquote and the paragraph on Law and Gospel and let the rest go. You, then, came in and reverted it, even though it was fine with that editor without a consideration or a second thought. I reverted it to give us a place to begin to whittle it down. You reverted it again. For me to do anything more with the article yesterday would put me on the verge of 3RR. I created this article just before I went off to do running in real life. Not more than a few hours later you were questioning all of this. Does not sound either civil or good faith to me.

If you want to be constructive, fine. Offer something of substance rather than disparaging others and their work.

This is the last I'll say of this. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I address my comments to you? Then why are you responding? I was accurately describing what happened on the page, which is that good trims of an article by another editor were reverted. The fact that this new editor RelHistBuff felt moved to "invite" you to revert his cuts, in reaction to your vociferous objection [2], simply supports my view of how very difficult it is to surmount the brick wall of obstructionism whenever good-faith trims are attempted.

Your partner than attacked qp10qp's edits in knee-jerk fashion and later admitted that he had done so without even having read them! [3]

RelHistBuff is now gone. Congratulations. You and the other editor dominating that page have won another victory in your effort to prevent substantive cuts to Martin Luther.

If this page turns out to be duplicative or a POV fork of Martin Luther-- with the counterpart sections in that article not reduced to proper NPOV summary style -- I will nominate this one for deletion.--Mantanmoreland 12:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just do the WP:SUMMARY thing on the Martin Luther article, please. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The most important reason of this article is for me (Rursus) to read, according to the Rursocentric world view, a world view practiced by one person, i.e. me. It's a very good overview! Those of you that have partaken in creating and editing this article: THX·10³! The others: bless! Said: Rursus ☻ 12:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Luther or Lutheran?

Why limit this to Martin Luther? Why not write an article on Lutheran theology in general? Why not throw in a little Philipp Melanchthon and later Lutheran theologians? Just a thought. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it was intended to be a spin off from the Martin Luther section from that article specifically. Homestarmy 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Still. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. --Mantanmoreland 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea Arch. I think at the moment, I need to concentrate on the Luther article. If you all have a change to work here. please do. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm interested in discerning the Luther view from the "Lutheran" view, I also affirm - a generally good idea if care is taken, that is iff there is some labeling, such that "Luther said this", "Melanchton said that", etc. etc.. Said: Rursus ☻ 12:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

LCMS emphasis

The list of references shows a strong reliance on Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod sources-- which makes sense considering the main contributors! But widening the field of sources is probably the next step in improving the article. Fishal 01:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine. This is only a start and I'm not sure when I'll get to this article in detail. Please feel free to wade in and go to sources beyond Lutheranism as well. The only thing I think we should watch for is that the sources are scholarly. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirected

I've redirected this to Martin Luther, as it seems to be written in a problematic way, relies too heavily on one organization for sourcing, and much of it is needed in the Martin Luther article (from which it was removed) to explain some of his ideas. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Still it is here! So probably the overview is needed. Said: Rursus ☻ 12:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"simply means"?

3rd para in section Simul justus et peccator claims:

"Simul justus et peccator" simply means ...

No it doesn't – an unschooled amateur wrote that. "Simul justus et peccator" is used mostly to pinpoint that as long as we live in a sinful world, we are polluted by sin, irrespectively if our soul is salvaged for heaven. But it is used in many ways. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. [4], [5] and [6]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

justification by faith

Luther had the sense to repeat the idea that faith alone was enough for salvation,put forward earlier by Wycliff (Pamour (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC))

Merger proposal

I think Theology of Martin Luther and Luther's Marian theology should be merged because the Marian theology is a part of his overall theology. Separating them tends toward being a POV fork, where the former article is more Reformed-friendly and the later is more Catholicized. I think nearly all of the Luther's Marian theology article can be added to this article; this is not a stealth attempt to delete it. Possibly some material in the lead and the Overview section would need to be integrated into this article, however, the remaining sections should be copyable into this one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a decent idea in principle, though I am a little concerned that such a merger would place undue emphasis on Luther's Marian theology (on the other hand, I suppose having a separate article on the subject could be said to already place such undue emphasis). At the moment, "Luther's Marian theology" has 1,838 words, while "Theology of Martin Luther" has only 1,688 words. Now, "Luther's Marian theology" could be pared down a bit if the two were to be merged, but the section on Mary would still overwhelm all the other sections. I think any merger would have to be very careful not to place undue emphasis on Mary while simultaneously preserving the information found in the current article.

I wonder if a better alternative mightn't be to change "Luther's Marian theology" to "Lutheran Marian theology," broadening the focus from Luther's personal views to the views of the Lutheran Church as a whole. It seems to me that the article is half attempting to go down that road at the moment anyway, with quotes from the Formula of Concord and Pieper, and references to Chemnitz, various Kirchenordnungen, the LCMS, etc. Bnng (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I will put up a notice for changing "Luther's" to Lutheran.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Luther's_Marian_theology#Requested_move_11_January_2020 for the move proposal.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Bnng and User:Epiphyllumlover, I think the suggested move is a wonderful idea and have commented in support of it (cf. Anglican Marian theology and Catholic Mariology). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)