Talk:Criticism of Protestantism

[Untitled]

I removed the redirect to Anti-Protestantism and inserted this article, since there are two separate articles of Anti-Catholicism and Criticism of Catholicism, because clearly these are two separate topics. One is the persecution of a religion and the other the intellectual critique of its tenets. Marax (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work.Ernio48 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sola anglica?

Excuse this Latin or pseudo-Latin headline; but isn't it strange that just such a huge article exists in English only? --80.187.97.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point?Ernio48 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV check

I requested a POV check because the article is totally biased and appears to be written by only one editor, the user Marax, for the sole purpose of blaming Protestantism for... well, everything (liberalism, secularism, homosexuality, decline of Western civilization, and so on). Also requires clean up, the article is simply too long and lacks of any reliable source. However the worst part of it is the massive "Catholic-thumper" attack against Protestant Reformation and Protestantism as a whole, filled with hateful speech and revilement.--GenoV84 (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GenoV84, let me just say that I disagree with your depiction of my "sole purpose" or interior motives, because the article is not based on my words but only on what the most prominent scholars on the topic have said, such as Dr. Albert Mohler, Rodney Stark, Fernand Braudel, Scott Hahn, and the words of Luther and Calvin themselves. And so your other statement that it lacks reliable sources is also untrue. Kindly look at the 136 footnotes and the number of biblical citations. Please also remember that WP:NPOV is based on due weight given to reliable sources. The fact that the article criticizes Protestantism should not come as a surprise, since the article is precisely titled Criticism of Protestantism. The article does contain praise though. Marax (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think it is tough to write on the topic of "Criticism of Protestantism" since Churches labelled as "Protestant" are quite different from one another. For example, the beliefs and practices of a Lutheran would be very different than those of a Pentecostal. I tried to balance some of the general criticism by including what specific denomination they were directed at; for example, it is inaccurate to say that Protestants do not believe in Confession because Lutherans, for example, do accept this practice. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GenoV84, Anupam. Thanks for your comments. I do believe I have addressed a substantial part of the comments of Genov84 in my reply, and Anupam has added more comments that clarify the issues. I hope we can already remove the POV check. Thank you. Marax (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn’t actually truly critical of Protestantism when it claims (1) it is biblical as none of them can stand up against Gal 3:22 “but the Scripture imprisons every one under sin so the promise from out of Jesus Christ’s faithfulness might be given to the faithful” and (2)it is Christ centered, when all Protestantism is denying the physical presence of Christ in their worship, thus, eliminating the center being Christ for a reduction in Christ. It would be better to say they are partially biblical and partially Christ centered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.223.226 (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Denominations

I have removed the claim that there are 45,000 Protestant denominations. The same study says that there are 242 Catholic denominations and 781 Orthodox denominations. On this topic, an article in the National Catholic Register titled "We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations" states:

There are not—repeat with me—there are not 33,000 Protestant denominations. There are not anywhere close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of repetition, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to concede, relies on too loose a definition of the word “denomination.”

The same article states:

And then the WCE somehow comes up with 242 Catholic denominations. That should be a big glaring red flag that it has been a bit—how shall we say?—free and loose with the word “denomination.” In fact, if you check the breakdown of these 242 supposed denominations, here is what you will find: Latin Rite Catholics, Byzantine Rite Catholics, Melkites, Copts, Maronites. That is to say, the WCE classifies different rites as though they are different denominations, in spite of the fact that all of them are in union with Rome. There is not a Catholic who labors under the sun who should not be suspicious of a working definition of “denomination” that would permit this. The resulting total has to be inflated—by 24,100% in this case.

In light of these facts, it's probably best that this specious claim be removed from the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there are not 33,000 Protestant denominations.A2Bros (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of similar issues on Wikipedia, and all come down to what is a "denomination". For example: Is it Baptists? or the Southern Baptist Convention? or something else? It gets mixed up all the time.Ernio48 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed User:Ernio. My inclination (and the method probably used by Protestants themselves) would be that "Lutheran" itself, for example, is classified as a denomination/faith tradition. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, while being organized separately in their respective countries, are still part of the World Lutheran Federation and it would not make sense to classify these as separate denominations because they differ only because of geography. One could similarly say that the Catholic Church in Germany (governed by the German Bishops' Conference) and the Catholic Church in the United States (governed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) are both a part of the Roman Catholic Church. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have a different understanding: Baptists are a branch/tradition, and functioning, legally recognized, and independent of each other organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., the National Baptist Convention of America, Inc., etc. are individual denominations.Ernio48 (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ernio48, that makes sense too! I appreciate your insight. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup: Neutral point of view

Since i requested a Cleanup in April due to the many issues that this page had, i did it myself, for the following reasons:

This page since its creation has been almost entirely written by one editor, Marax, and reflected his own religious views, opinions, judgement and accusations towards Protestant Christianity;
The entire article was blatantly biased and POV;
Made up, fabricated stories, false claims, opinions, and statements attributed to Protestant Scholars and Theologians;
apologetic, promotional, and religious propagandistic tone;
total lack of neutral references (Catholic apologetic blogs everywhere);
original research (personalistic opinions and "biblical lectures" of Marax, the main author of this page);

I removed all the Catholic apologetics' blogs and pictures, accusations of Protestantism to be the source of all evils (capitalism, individualism, gay marriages, sexual immorality, abortion, ecc.), and a few official statement from Vatican.va because they were unrelated to criticyzing Protestantism (Off topic).

Moreover the user Marax (Raul Nidoy) is an Opus Dei affiliate (search him on Google), which explains everything that was previously written here... overall, the real aim of this page as it was written by Marax was to convert Protestant Christians to Roman Catholicism (see page history); ANY kind of religious or political propaganda is absolutely Forbidden on Wikipedia, and i'm pretty sure that Marax already knew it, but he decided to write this article in an extremely biased and apologetical way regardless of Wikipedia policies.

I hope i can help to improve the article by bringing more reliable sources and neutral content now that the page is cleaned up.--GenoV84 (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GenoV84 It's good that you've cleaned up this page and all, as it was probably the most nakedly-biased article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. But even though it now reads much less like a Catholic polemic than before, it's sort of been stripped down to nearly nothing. It would almost be better if the entire page were re-written from scratch along the lines of the Criticism of the Catholic Church article, which provides criticism from multiple perspectives, both secular and religious, as well as Catholic counterarguments. You should probably also get some other editors to help you so as not to repeat the error of the article's original creator. --Sarathiel (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, there are definitely lots of improvements that need to be done and i can't do all the work alone, but this page was a shame the way it was written before; i will add more neutral and reliable content in the future. Thanks.--GenoV84 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the page is pretty good. As stated earlier in this talk page, the problem is that there are so many variations of Protestantism that it is difficult to criticise them all at the same time without leading to the misunderstanding that "all" of the opposing side is like that. This problem is not new, the Council of Trent wrestled with a similar problem-- trying to condemn what the other side is saying and not anything else.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of primary sources

GenoV84 (talk · contribs) wants to use 3-4 primary sources (literature published by a particular denomination) where a single source seems sufficient to support the statement that the denomination adheres to a particular belief.[1][2] Can other editors indicate their thoughts about whether the additional primary sources are suitable? The editor suggests that because "WP:PSTS doesn't state how many primary sources should be used", that this means any number can be added; however, that does not mean that the number of sources are necessary. Such sourcing would ordinarily only be required for a contentious or complex point, not a single element of belief support by a single source. See also WP:OVERCITE.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffro77: I already replied to you on your Talk page.--GenoV84 (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that. This section is for other editors to give their thoughts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]