This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I don't believe the article. All main stream christianity claims that the old testament must be interpreted in the light of the message of the new testament, thus according to the article's definition, all christianity is "progressive revelationist". Therefore I believe that the article mumbles away or misunderstands the real 'progressive revelation' concept. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I simply removed the dubious-marked para claiming that orthodoxi and catholici disagree with prog-revel. The concept Progressive revelation seems to occur with two slightly different attitudes: 1. the GT shall be interpreted as observed "through the NT-glasses", 2. it is vain to reinterpret such GT-sayings that contradicts NT-sayings. All christians (by definition) adher to 1., while most reject 2. as either too restrictive or too "liberal" (although in a sense it is not it is actually a thought restriction). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
