Talk:Imputed righteousness

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not all Protestants are Lutheran or Calvinists!!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Imputation of Adam's sin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrote first section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Following this observation, I have moved the article maintenance tags and restructured the article sections.  Then I reformated the footnotes using the syntax  note text . DFH 20:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass deletions by unregistered users 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversial sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improvement