Talk:Imputed righteousness

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Imputed righteousness article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Christianity: Theology / Lutheranism / Reformed Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as High-importance).
	Reformed Christianity portal This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity (assessed as High-importance).

Not all Protestants are Lutheran or Calvinists!!!

I don't have time at the moment to work on this, but there are a range of Protestant positions - all the descendents of the Wesleyan tradition, for instance, are closer to Catholics on this issue. References to "Protestants" need to say which Protestants.99.43.32.160 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, and Orthodox Christianity is completely left out of the article. I'm not qualified to summarize their beliefs but it is a deficit of the article as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.186.182.181 (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

The author of this page did not carefully proofread his post. Thus there are multiple misspellings and other typos. It needs cleaning up.

In additon, the author argues aginst the main topic of the page itself with little to no documentation supporting his point. Documnetation is needed. Sduplessie 2006-10-15 00:59:05

I have marked the largest section as requiring wikifying & cleanup. DFH 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to clean this up with little success. It needs less of "...they claim..." and more of a debate. Douglike 12:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the definition and added a bit of material. I'm depending largely on McGrath, who I believe is acknowledged as an (maybe the) expert in this area. It also seems to make sense to say something about the "New Perspective." I still haven't decided whether I buy it or not, but I think it needs to be here.

However in doing this I have made minimal changes in the existing text. Now the question is whether to replace the arguments for and against. If I did, I would again look to McGrath for the arguments that were commonly used historically. However the point of Wikipedia isn't to persuade people of doctrines, so I'm inclined to think that what should really be here is a brief historical section talking about where the idea came from, which would certainly mention some of the common arguments for and against. How to do a 2 paragraph summary of McGrath's book is kind of interesting, but that's probably what is needed. Hedrick (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a couple of minor cleanups in language. I still haven't decided whether to do a more major rewrite. Hedrick (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imputation of Adam's sin

It may be useful for someone to add a section relating the doctrine of imputed righteousness to the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin, which although being one aspect of original sin, it is not (yet) addressed as such in that Wikipedia article. DFH 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote first section

The original article was not as informational as it was polemical. To the end of making it more informational, I rewrote the description of the doctrine from the pro-imputation perspective. I hope it is a little fairer to the position than the original paragraph. More could be added in the future.--Irrespective 02:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletions by unregistered users

I just observed that there has been a lot of text deleted by unregistered users. A lot of what was removed needed rewriting anyway as part of the cleanup. Even so, edits should have been properly described, and major edits discussed in the talk page. DFH 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following this observation, I have moved the article maintenance tags and restructured the article sections. Then I reformated the footnotes using the syntax <ref> note text </ref>. DFH 20:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial sentence

The sentence "Those who trust in the promise that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross atones for their sins believe in this type of righteousness as opposed to imparted righteousness and sanctification" seems over-the-top. Is this saying that all Christians who believe in the redemption also believe this doctrine as opposed to others? I added a request for a citation, though I'm tempted to remove it altogether. Am I missing something? Cheeseprophet (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not missing anything. That's incredibly polemical. Clearly Catholics believe that Jesus' death atones, and don't accept imputed righteousness (at least not as the primary mechanism of justification.)

I agree that this article is a mess. I'm going to see if I can do something with it. I'm particularly upset with the definition at the beginning.

Hedrick (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

This article could really benefit from (to put it tactfully) improvement, both in style and content. For instance there is a big section contrasting 'imputed r.' and 'infused r.', but not mentioning 'imparted r.' at all. I'm going to start on some changes which I hope take us a little in this direction. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article still is a mess: it is highly repetitive. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Differing views about imputed righteousness

In this section, under "Roman Catholic view," I have edited the phrase "Roman Catholic," replacing it with "Catholic," so as to avoid any pejorative connotations which the term "Roman" may hold, since "Roman" has been used historically as a denigration by Protestants against those who follow the Catholic Church. Since this article refers to certain doctrines which divide Protestants and Catholics, the more neutral (and more correct and official) term "Catholic" is entirely more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has come up in some other groups.

In my understanding (as a Catholic) "Roman" is not perjorative compared to antiquated e.g. "Romish", and a perjorative aspect is perhaps a regional thing that is not true generally. (Indeed, in other forums it was difficult to find any actual instances where it was offensive: from where I am, it seems to be overblown, but others may have a different perspective. And just because someone uses a term meaning it to be perjorative does not mean the targets are offended: think of "queer" which can be used derogatively or proudly depending on context. If a group self-identifies with some term, it is not legitimate for an editor to decide that term should not be used, surely?)

I think the best approach is not to be afraid to use it as a technical disambiguator where needed or when quoting, but not to put it in otherwise.

IMHO "Catholic" is indeed preferable when referring to

beliefs etc. held by all the churches/person in communion with Rome (e.g. the Byzantine Catholics)
beliefs etc. held by all the churches/person who explicitly style themselves as Catholic
beliefs etc. held by a local/regional Catholic church/person where there is no relevant Roman aspect
a group that, while Roman Catholic, downplays the papal connection (e.g. conciliarists)

"Roman Catholic" is preferable when referring to, in context, things that might other be confusing:

beliefs etc. directly related to the Roman church/person (actions of a Pope, liturgy) that are distinct from other forms of Catholicism
beliefs etc. that not held by all churches/person who explicitly style themselves as catholic
beliefs etc. that, while not specifically Roman, are held in the particular case because the church/person is Roman Catholic and this is significant in context.
where the emphasis (political, cultural, nationalistic, etc) of the community etc. is its unity with Rome for political/theological/ethnic reasons (e.g. ultramontanists)
beliefs of the Catholic group following the Bishop of Rome at schism, at that time.

So, for example, where an article is discussing Catholics (in communion with Rome) versus Anglican "bells and smells" Catholics (in communion with Canturbury), then "Roman Catholic" is an entirely appropriate disambiguator (e.g. Cardinal Newman became a Roman Catholic, he already was, in his mind, a Catholic - and Anglo-Catholic). But saying "Abortion is regarded gravely in Roman Catholicism" is not best: better would be "Abortion is regarded gravely in Catholicism". When we consider Erasmus, the article used to say that he "remained loyal to the Roman Pope": there is no need to use the metonymy of "Pope": instead say "Roman Catholic church" (which I think is likely perjorative); and there is no need for the "Roman" as the issue of other non-Roman Catholic churches, in communion with Rome, is not relevant. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]