Talk:Sanctification in Christianity

message: I think it is important that the precise meaning of the word “holy” is made clear in this article.
If “holy” is to be understood as oxford dic. Meaning 1.3, (spiritual or religious excellence) then the sections on protestantismen and methodists make some sense, if the meaning of “holy” is merrian websters meaning 2 (divine) then the entire article is non nicean. The corresponding word in germanic lanquages (of some interest here since many reformers spoke germanic lanq.) Is heilig/hellig etc. These words have the primary meaning of something “divine”. And most certainly neither luther nor wesley thought that man somehow become “divine”.
 
I think that for many people not accustomed to the different meanings of the english word “holy”, much of the article is very confusing and can easely be misunderstood.62.44.134.132 (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  non nicean view of Christianity ? 

message: Hi everyone. Newbie here. Having both Baptist and A of G roots, as well as Lutheran. Episcopalian, Calvary Chapel, Vineyard and so called "non-denominational background", I, as you can imagine, have a heart to see the Body unified. When I read that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was linked to Sanctification, my first reaction was no wonder the Baptist are ticked off. Full on Charasmatics and hard line Baptists can find their common ground in our marvelous Lord. Point #1: All Christians have the Holy Spirit at salvation upon accepting Christ. #2 Any second touch or B of the HS can not be linked to personal works, achievement in holiness, or elite favor. #3 Sorry Baptists--the Holy Spirit is alive and well and distributes all gifts listed in the Bible. There is no Aposolic age/church age division. More: Pentacostals though you may not have intended it, your message has made Baptists feel like you think they don't have the Holy Spirit and that you are living on a higher plane. Be nice to your brothers--we are all in this together. There is no higher plane until God lifts us up in glory.
Hello! Regarding the comment made in a recent edit summary: This entry deserves to be separate. If I don't expand it at some point over the next few months, someone else probably will. It is a distinct area of spiritual theology. Trc | [msg] 08:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi CG,  Oops, I just committed the Wikipedia "sin" of editing without reading the Discussion Page first.  But I hope what's there is now ok--in principle, the concept of sanctification would hold for all sorts of religions, not just Christianity, so disagreements among Christians can be glossed over here.  I put back the Baptist material as an example, making it clear that it's a quotation. Opus33 04:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 discussions

message: I added a notice citing a need for attention & development; this is an important theological subject that deserves a better page.  KHM03 22:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention

message: I reverted to the last version by Flex...an anonymous user added a bit tothe Protestant section about "the Protestant doctrine of the Rapture".  Aside from the fact that there is no such thing (that's a dispensationalist thing that does not represent the majority of Protestantism), it also had very little to do with sanctification.  KHM03 22:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sept 10, 2005 

message: I reverted the addition of an external link to "Holiness Debate" that an anonIP had been adding to various spiritual/religous articles.  The bears no direct relationship to the article; and by the contributions history, this appears to be a case of external link spam. — ERcheck (talk) @ 04:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link/link spam

message: The reference to sanctification and the Holiness movement seems slightly too brief to me.  The long term influence of the Holiness movement has proven significant, and its views on sanctification significantly influenced some of the theology within the Pentecostal movement.  Perhaps some passing reference could be made of these things.--Niceguy2all 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holiness Movement

message: The RC section drifts away from NPOV, IMHO.  This article is a mess.  The section for RC needs to be tightened up and shortened as does the Methodist section. Reverend Mommy 23:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Anyone out there want to take a stab at it? I'm not Catholic and don't think I'd do a good job. See if you can get it about to the size of Eastern Orthodoxy. If no one does this in the next few months, I much just come in and remove the last %80 of it or something.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I came in and did what I threatened to do last February. If any Catholics are unhappy, please replace what is there is some original writing instead of copy and paste from the Catholic Encyclopedia. In addition, I deleted the Protestant section, because it did not accurately represent every single Protestant denomination listed. If any Protestants are unhappy with that, feel free to write your own, sourced overview. A concise summary of Protestant similarities and differences on Sanctification would be useful. Perhaps even a table could be made, as was done for the Justification (theology) article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Catholic Section

message: The last sentence of the lead is a bit POV.  
: "What is often missed, or overlooked, is the relational aspect that is associated with the word sancification. Only God is truly holy. Everything else, whether it is things or people, is holy only because of its relationship to God."
Some believe that sanctification is the process whereby thru the grace of God man becomes holy.  Is this nitpicking? I don't think so.  I don't want to start an edit war, so I wanted to discuss this first. 74s181 20:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in lead 

message: This link was flagged, and if it remains, the article cannot be edited. Any suggestions on the best way to correct this without losing the link altogether?
"Living the Message of 1 Corinthians 7:12"
Would it be OK to remove it or find a replacement?
I have submitted it for removal from the spam list. WikiMasterCreator 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam protection filter

message: shouldn't this aricle be titled "sanctification"? That would make more sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.216.26 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing. The title should be changed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  title 

message: I added the original research tag and citations needed tag to the top of the article to indicate a few things need a bit of work here.  There are a lot of things said in the article that I know to be factually untrue (a couple of which I repaired), as well as some things that may be true but are not sourced.  This is an important subject, especially in Christian theology.  I hope someone can clean this article up a bit to make it into what it should be.  There is a book called Five Views on Sanctification that discusses the different Protestant Christian views on the subject that is quite good. Also, I think maybe there should be a separate section for "other religion's views of sanctification" and Christian sanctification, because there seem to be big differences.  Otherwise, this article is off to a good start, just needs a bunch of cleanup.  I hope I can help out a bit.
Kristamaranatha (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added warning tags 

message: The following entry is incorrect: "Most of us experience some measure of what the scriptures call “the furnace of affliction” (Isa. 48:10; 1 Ne. 20:10)."
The scriptural reference 1 Ne.20:10 should be changed to 1 Nephi 20:10 in the Book of Mormon to avoid confusion.  Nehemiah is often abbreviated as "Ne or Neh", but the books 1 & 2 Nephi in the Book of Mormon should be spelled out Nephi.  The current reference 1 Ne. 20:10 hyperlinks to Nehemiah in the Old Testament.  1 Nephi 20:10 reads: "For, behold, I have refined thee, I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction." 
Nehemiah in the Old Testament has only 13 chapters, and is normally abbreviated Neh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenskapoyk (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the non-trinitarian section is superfluous. I suggest getting rid of that heading and merge the LDS section with the rest of the section on christian views. Especially, since LDS is the only entry in the non-trinitarian section. It just doesn't need to be there and doesn't add anything to the article. 72.204.20.116 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, I'm editing it. I am removing the Non-Trinitarian heading. It is superfluous and irrelevent to the subject of sanctification. Even if LDS are technically non-trinitarian, the term does nothing to make the article clearer. LDS should now be under the heading of Christian views. 72.204.20.116 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Section

message: Should this article be merged with Sacred? Erudecorp ? * 16:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I removed the External Links section.  The list was growing and consisted mainly of spam/POV pushing.  If the contect of the links is relevant to the article, use it as a secondary source and reference it.  See Wikipedia:External links for the guidelines/policy on their use. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The challenge I have with this section is the reference to works. While Justification is unconditional and without works, The level and direction of ones sanctification is directly related to our choice, as christians to keep our eyes on God and not listen to the sin-nature in us. While this is not works like 'feeding the poor', it does require direct effort on our part to lead our hearts and not be led by our hearts. So to reference sanctification as holly from the spirit, which it is, but that as christians, were are being sanctified all the time just cause we are justified, is not correct. A christian bound by self condemation and following the law out of sin nature is not being blessed by the spirit and not being sanctified, or at least not by much. 
Your thoughts  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.113.113 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as a Calvinist, I actually agree that Sanctification is an automatic process.  If you are truly saved, then Sanctification will begin to occur as a natural result.  When the Holy Spirit is in you, it can't not.  To claim otherwise is to say that human choice can thwart God's sovereignty, which we cannot do.  TBH, I'd really like to change the Calvinist section all together, at the very least to make it more clear.  Justification refers to the process by which a Christian is made right with God and is instantaneous.  Sanctification is the process by which a Christian becomes more holy and like God and does not occur all at once.  While the article does seem to say that right now, it does so in a rather roundabout way, I think.  And it'd be nice to have more solidly Calvinist citations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KelinciHutan (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calvinism 

message: What is up with all the non-substantive hyperlinking in an otherwise excellent article?!  A hyperlink should indicate that there is a useful extension of the idea at hand or an important explanation.  Useful hyperlinks in this article included "Christianity", "Richard Hooker", and "entire sanctification".  However, hyperlinking to every common word that just happens to have a wikipedia article on it is simply distracting.  If this article was in print, would you ever footnote words like "temple", "human", and "gift" just to define them?!  It's not just this article either.  It's like a group is playing a childish game to see how many self-referencing wikipedia links they can put in every article.  To be blunt, it makes wikipedia look dumb. MrYdobon (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous Hyperlinking 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sanctification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105232613/http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Sanctity to http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Sanctity
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513044028/http://www.apostolicfaith.org/OurFaith/Doctrines.aspx to http://apostolicfaith.org/OurFaith/Doctrines.aspx/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619012214/http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/gendoct_05_sanctification.cfm to http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/topics/gendoct_05_sanctification.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: These topics WP:OVERLAP, are WP:REDUNDANT, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. In the opening of the consecration article it states "A synonym for consecration is sanctification; its antonym is desecration." Neither article substantially addresses how the two ideas are different. While both articles are long the majority of both is comprised of breakdowns of individual Christian group's approaches to their theology. The sanctification article states "The concept of sanctification is widespread among religions," which suggests that Christian focus is wp:undue.  Darker Dreams (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not merge sanction and consecration. Consecration is a term used in both liturgy and canon law – for example the consecration of a virgin a chalice; moreover, this article is not a stub but rather lengthy. In the RCC, there is a threefold term for "to set apart" resp. to bless: ordination, consecration and the blessings.--Medusahead (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose -Consecration oftentimes involves a specific ritual; sanctification does not. Manannan67 (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Comment as I look at the material in the existing articles, perhaps a better course is to move them to "in Christianity" articles. The vast majority of the material in both is oriented towards Christian denominations and merge the remaining information. This would also parallel the construction for most of the other religions where the major information is on a separate article. Darker Dreams (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been 12 days since the last comment. I believe this alternative proposal (move the articles to "in Christianity" then merge a globalized version) meets the concerns raised - that there's a Christian specific separation in definition and significant (Christianity specific) information while moving towards a more globalized general article that can direct readers to those detailed articles similarly to how other religions have been handled. Unless there is disagreement expressed I'll move to do that in the next few days. Darker Dreams (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Sanctification]] and [[Consecration]] 

message: This paragraph for introducing sanctification does not seem like a general overview of the Christian perspective, nor does it have formal tone. In tone it would be appropriate in a sermon than on a Wikipedia page
Sanctification means that self(attitudes, desires, self-will, etc.) is crucified and that you are no longer carnal(in you thoughts, actions, or mind). So, you get filled with the Holy Ghost. This is also known as the second work of grace. In sanctification it is higher level of purging God does because you’re no longer carnal. Also, God will still show you things about yourself, but it should never be carnal. Levalmaster (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity introduction