A potential "quick fix" that would provide perspective - this was done quickly and has already had a Lutheran suggest a correction:
Yesterday, I was exploring the Theology Guide in the context of how to create tradition specific theological workflows. Thus I found myself reading the article on "The Number of Sacraments" in the Lexham Survey of Theology. As a logician, I had my normal reaction to the use of weasel words "generally", "many" ... and the lack of references so that verification of the information is difficult. However, the primary difficulty is that as a survey, it doesn't make getting a survey view easy. I would like to suggest that between the text and the passage list, you actually insert a survey. For the article "The Number of Sacraments" this survey would like something like:
[image goes here]
Note: The selected groups are shown in the order of schism with no other implication. Church of the East/Oriental Orthodox are combined as it is difficult to find the necessary data for them individually. I will not vouch for the accuracy of my data on Calvinism. I know that in some cases I am using outdated vocabulary e.g. penance rather than reconciliation.
What I see in the chart:
1, The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox use the term "Major" implying that there are also minor sacraments; their definition of "sacrament" is probably broader than that in the Western tradition.
2. The Lutherans and the Anglicans make a distinction between "sacraments" and "sacramentals" at a different point than Catholics; their definition of "sacrament" it probably tighter than that of the Orthodox and Catholics.
3. The Anabaptists and Calvinists are inclined to use terms other than "sacrament" i.e. "ceremonies" or "Ordinances"; this likely means a radical shift away from the sacramental theology.
I can now read the text of the LST with some context in which to translate the weasel words into assertions that can be evaluated as true or false. And I can get a relatively objective view of the state of the topic today across the most significant historical schisms.
I would like to see the LST enhanced by the inclusion of such summary data at the end of each topic. It also provides a context for the major theological debates of today by indicating what threads of theology are actually involved.
- Preform vs perform https://uploadarticlenow.com/preform-vs-perform/ may look and sound similar, but they have distinct meanings and uses in English. "Perform" is the far more common word, meaning to carry out an action, task, or piece of work — such as performing a song, performing surgery, or performing well on a test. It's used constantly in everyday language, from describing job duties to discussing artistic or athletic achievements. "Preform," on the other hand, is a much rarer and more technical term, meaning to shape or form something in advance, often before a final manufacturing process. It's typically used in industrial or scientific contexts, such as a "preform" being the pre-shaped plastic tube used before it's blow-molded into a bottle. Because "perform" is so much more frequently used, many people mistakenly type "preform" when they actually mean "perform," especially in casual writing or quick typing where the extra letter goes unnoticed. A simple way to remember the difference: if you're talking about doing an action, task, or performance, the correct word is "perform." If you're referring to shaping or molding something into a preliminary form, especially in a manufacturing or technical setting, "preform" is the correct choice. Keeping this distinction in mind helps avoid a small but noticeable error, particularly in professional or technical writing where precision matters.
