Talk:Old School–New School controversy

[Untitled]
The Controversy is not defined, but has only the Civil War as adding to the debate. Was the primary cause of the Controversy Arminianism versus Calvinism? The reader will only learn something of the track and timeline of the debate, but not the specific reasons that caused the division as the article stands. Baptistark (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Very Incomplete Article
I am interested in the issues of the controversy. What did the Old School assert? What did the New School assert? It is as if an article on the civil war immediately started describing the battles without talking about the slavery or state rights. Tennysonm (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * good point. I added some theology. Rjensen (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the premise was off...
I couldn't go on.

I was interested in what this controversy was. (I started studying Albert Barnes, so....) However, I remember when there was no PCUSA, (or PCA -- which is when the old denom factions enough that "USA" was added to the old denom's name), so to start that this controverse started with a denomination that wasn't around for another 100+ years, stopped me cold.

I know it's complicated, but that is supposed to be the reason for wiki -- to explain fully. And, yes, I know wiki has become extremely world-biased, but considering this is one of those topics the world doesn't care about, I would like to see it addressed well. (I'm hoping theologians seriously into history are working on this.)

I suspect the graphic is part of the problem, but since I don't know the history, I can't say for sure. 2600:4040:7EDC:6400:19BA:E70:E0BE:83BD (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @2600:4040:7EDC:6400:19BA:E70:E0BE:83BD The PCUSA was definitely around then. The modern PC(USA) is the result of a bunch reunifications in the 20th century. If you read the PCUSA article it will explain the history. Ltwin (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)