Talk:Formal and material principles of theology

Unstated Assumptions
The distinction between Formal principle and Material principle seems very dubious. It purports to follow the well-known distinction between form and matter, but appears to be little more than a hatchet job.

The article lacks references to make the distinction meaningful. Who precisely makes such distinctions? What sort of theological context do they make them in? What are the underlying assumptions behind them? We are given no precise way to make such a determination. As such the distinction seems fairly useless in practice.

--Sophroniscus 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that by redirecting the two articles into one helps to facilitate understanding of this. I think that more sources need to be found that support these categories of theology, and adherents of other faiths could make sure that the designations are NPOV.--Drboisclair (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed this comment: "(Mayer should have included "and the Book of Concord") find a reference to sola scriptura before the Prussian Union please." from the entry, because it belongs here on the discussion page, not in the article proper.

Besides, even the LCMS, arguably the most "confessional" Lutheran body in North America, holds to these scriptures "because" (see debate between the LCMS and the ELCA on the use of "quaternus" versus "quia") they believe they accurately reflect what scripture teaches, not because they are additional teachings with authority found in themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.164.206 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)