Talk:Justification (theology)/Archive 1

message: I added the Roman Catholic doctrine from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I couldn't find anything in the Calvinist section that I believe an Arminian would object to, so I relabeled the section as Protestant. Any Arminians disagree with my assessment? Does this address the NPOV issue? 
Perhaps a section on attempts to bridge the gap between Protestants and Catholics should be added (e.g. Evangelicals and Catholics Together).
-- Rich Blinne 1 December 2004,    16:08 (UTC)
::I took off the flag I put on the article.  RichBlinne is right, in my opinion.  I just wish the author had been a little more forthcoming about his/her inability to cover more perspectives adequately.  While the article originally did mention other POVs, it didn't come anywhere near giving them an equal billing with the Calvinist one.  I feel that the edits made thus far represent a substantial improvement.
RhesusmanRhesusman  2 December 2004,    12:22 (UTC)
Actually the Arminian view of justification does differ from the Calvinist one. There is also a third perspective on justification from N T Wright. I think the section labeled Protestant Doctrine of Justification should be relabled either Calvinist Doctrine of Justification or Reformed Doctrine of Justification and sections added for Arminian Doctrine of Justification and then a section on N T Wright. Is it ok to create these new sections blank and then fill them in later, when I have time?
--CardassianScot 12:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the article has grown into a monstrous mess and desperately needs some trimming and clarification.  The Arminian viewpoint certainly is different from the Calvinist perspective; most of the article seems very Roman to me.  The article seems to need a major restructuring...we need a "do over"!  KHM03 18:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt at Addressing NPOV Issue 

message: It seems to me that the following excerpt form the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/weekinreview/24stan.html (discussing Cardinal Ratzinger's past work) should be looked up and included in some form on this page. *Supposedly* it re-unites/reconciles the Protestant and R Catholic viewpoints:
"...And yet one of his less known decisions was a 1998 joint declaration by the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation affirming that the two churches had found common ground on the issue of "justification," the means by which a human being is made worthy of salvation; that dispute drove Martin Luther to set off the Protestant Reformation more than 500 years ago. At the time, many of Cardinal Ratzinger's critics suspected that he would sabotage the declaration. Instead, the Cardinal, a longtime admirer of Martin Luther, was instrumental in rescuing an agreement when it was on the verge of collapse, according to John L. Allen Jr., a journalist for The National Catholic Reporter who wrote a 2001 biography of Cardinal Ratzinger. The signing took place on Oct. 31, 1999, the anniversary of the day Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg...."  --222.153.178.76 23:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and it is a very well known document among Catholics and Lutherans. I have created a stub article about it. See Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Furthermore, the material from the 1903 Catholic Encyclopedia does not adequately express the highly nuanced position expressed by the Pontifical Council in the JDDF, which is a more authoritative source.--24.176.68.73 19:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1998 Joint Declaration

message: With respect, I tossed out most of the section.  It needs a major rewrite to be NPOV, and also contained a lot of inaccuracies. I've left a basic outline which I hope will be easier to work with, while also giving room to discuss variances within Protestantism. No offense or disrespect to previous editors intended...I just felt it was needed in order to perfect the section. KHM03 22:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent edits still look like a mess to me (and pretty NPOV as well).  Any thoughts/suggestions?  KHM03 20:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protestant section

message: And do we really need these lengthy lists?  Wouldn't it be better to have 3 or 4 good Catholic sources, 3 or 4 good Lutheran, etc.? KHM03 22:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm in favor of good resource lists because this is a difficult topic for everyone. If there are lots of complaints, we can whittle them down, but I don't recommend it. Johnaugus
I would just like to see a "user friendly" list of far fewer...but high quality...resources.  For example, are all those Catholic books equal in excellence re:the topic at hand?  Or are there a few key texts, or resources which explain the perspective particularly effectively?  We could list hundreds of fine Protestant books, but wouldn't it be better to just suggest a few of particular excellence, and let the reader continue his or her research from there, rather than burdening the reader with a massive list which leads the reader to exclaim, "Where on earth do I start?"  A good compromise might be an external link to a bibliography.  KHM03 00:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: A bibliography page (for the entire category) may be a great idea.  This is a place where the Wikipedia can shine --- as a true encyclopedia, containing as much as possible in a logical form.  The longer and better the bibliography, the more we will be of use to people.  --Rekleov 13:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure.  It will be easy to maintain and will have a specific function. --Rekleov 13:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Printed resources

message: This section in the Catholic part is woefully inaccurate in its portrayal of the difference between Lutheran and Calvinist understandings. I didn't want to delete the entire section and really hope that someone who understands the Catholic position can redo the section.
CSMR 10:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the problem of sola fide" 

message: I've attempted to rework this article in order to strike an encyclopedic tone and to remove some of the apologetic from the Catholic and Protestant sections.  Please leave a message if I cut a really important point out -- that wasn't my intent!  jrcagle 03:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh start 

message: I moved the Orthodox Christianity section.  I'm an Orthodox Christian, and for us, justification is not a major doctrine.  Thus, it makes more sense to explain the more traditions for which it is considered more important and then present the Orthodox viewpoint as an overall contrast. Dogface 03:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh ... thought you might appreciate being first. :-)  Seriously, since the overall movement of the article is historical, would it make more sense to talk about "early church" pre-1054, and then have a separate post-1054 Orthodox section at the bottom that says "the Orthodox pretty much agrees with pre-split views"? jrcagle 19:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Orthodox Section 

message: One paragraph at the top formerly read thus:
(old)
The relationship between justification and religious law: whether justification is merely "forensic", a legal declaration that a sinner is now righteous before God for Christ's sake, or something more;
The paragraph at the top now reads thus after  MonkeeSage's edit:
(new)
The relationship between justification and religious law: whether justification is "forensic", a legal declaration that a sinner is now righteous before God for Christ's sake, or "constitutive", an actual change in the sinner;
The change to "constituitive" makes good sense.  I would prefer the language "change in the nature of the sinner" rather than "actual change in the sinner", since the word actual is ambiguous theologically (is it a real change or a change in actions? -- cf. usage of actual sin in the Westminster Confession) *and* because Protestant forensic justification *is* a real change in the sinner: the sinner is no longer subject to God's wrath and is at peace with God.  
I would vote against the change from "merely forensic" to "forensic", for the following reason:  Some Roman Catholic theologians take Trent to mean forensic + constituitive, others reject forensic language entirely.  All RCs however insist that justification is not "merely forensic."  See RC source  and non-RC source , and compare to | Trent 6th Session, chap. 7.
The paragraph
(old)
* The relationship of justification to sanctification, the process whereby sinners become more righteous and are enabled by the Holy Spirit to live lives more pleasing to God ...
was edited to remove the mores, thus:
(new)
* The relationship of justification to sanctification, the process whereby sinners become righteous and are enabled by the Holy Spirit to live lives pleasing to God ...
I don't understand the import of that change.  It appears to deny that sanctification is an ongoing process, which almost all agree to.
Adding propitiation was a good and necessary addition.  Thanks!
jrcagle 20:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jrcagle: Good points. On the first issue I was just careless and basing my edits mainly on catholic apologists like Keating and Matatics (who have an obvious reason to focus on only the constitutive aspect), rather than actual catechetical and canon literature. On the second point, I was trying to create an ambiguity between definitive/initial sanctification (i.e., regeneration), progressive sanctification, and final sanctification (i.e., glorification), as "more" could be taken as only including the latter two, while the former is just as important (to many Protestants) to distinguish from justification (in terms of the ground and material cause) as the latter two. I thought that leaving "process" would allow the statement to encompass all three "kinds" of sanctification, while still conveying that it is not merely a single point-in-time event. If there is a better way to do it, I have no objections at all. » MonkeeSage « 00:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Imprecision is the bane of theology, and the boone of a thousand misunderstandings, heh. ;) Feel free to rework as needed; I mainly wanted to just get the that particular conflict represented, as it is a fairly common point of debate between Cathlics and Protestants. I don't think you're nitpicking, BTW, I think you have a good point and it should be represented in the article. » MonkeeSage « 00:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See if you like the current version.  jrcagle 12:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Forensic" v. "Merely Forensic" 

message: The addition "they also claim that James 2:24 refers to "showing" one's justification before men (v. 18, i.e., "declarative justification"), not actual justification before God." is a pretty typical Protestant solution to the James problem, but it is not the only one offered.  
Another typical solution, slightly different from the one above from the Wikiarticle, is to take "you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" to mean that one is justified before God by a faith that, after the moment of justification, leads to works, which you can see and use as post-facto evidence of justification.  See .
The only difference between the two statements is the indirect object of "justified" - to (or before) whom?  In the first, it appears to read "justified before men" (which is the approach here: ).  In the second, it reads "justified before God" (which you see, because of the works). In both cases, the works validate the salvation before men, but the sense of justification is different. 
end of nitpick. :-)
jrcagle 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imprecision is the bane of theology, and the boone of a thousand misunderstandings, heh. ;) Feel free to rework as needed; I mainly wanted to just get the that particular conflict represented, as it is a fairly common point of debate between Cathlics and Protestants. I don't think you're nitpicking, BTW, I think you have a good point and it should be represented in the article. » MonkeeSage « 00:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See if you like the current version.  jrcagle 12:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One More Thought

message: On 12 July 2006 between 11:04 and 11:47PM, an anonymous user at 81.157.255.148 modified the justification article by copy-pasting the list of Catholic justification characteristics into the early church justification characteristics.
While such a change might be welcome to those who consider Catholic doctrine to accurately represent the doctrine of the early church, it is not acceptable on Wiki for the following reasons:
* Such a change is POV
* Such a change is undocumented
If there needs to be discussion about including the change, please do so here.  Until the case is made, that particular item will be deleted.
jrcagle 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV gentle reminder 

message: Substituted at 15:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hi all,
I reverted a paragraph on justification in the gospels.  The prior text read
::The gospels do not give any extended discourse of Jesus on justification. He does mention the term once, in Luke 18:10-14, but assumes that his listeners know what it means to be "justified." However, justification is a very present sub-text of the gospel accounts. All four Gospel writers (evangelists) portray his teaching, life, death, and resurrection through the lens of our need for righteousness, connected to our need for forgiveness of sins.
That text was modified to read
::The gospels do not give any extended discourse of Jesus on justification. He does mention the term once, in Luke 18:10-14. All four Gospel writers portray his teaching, life, death, and resurrection.
which is true, but somewhat vacuous.
I've reverted to the prior text, but if there are POV or other concerns, please feel free to discuss here. jrcagle 20:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I assume that this is 62.94.185.50.  Please feel free to log in and join the discussion.  The reason that Romans 5 is said to discuss 'imputed righteousness' is that the language of imputation is a straightforward understanding of Romans 5, esp. vv. 13 and 18.  The use of 'imputation' in the article is not an attempt to prejudice the discussion in favor of the Lutheran understanding of imputation; the point is merely to say that the language is *used* at this point, which then becomes the basis for the later division between RC and Prot. understandings, which is the overarching organizational theme of the article (as well as the topic sentence of the section on Paul!). jrcagle 14:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification in the Gospels 

message: 161.85.127.153 had changed the translation of 'ελλογηται' in Romans 5.13 from 'imputed' to 'inherited.'  That translation finds no support in any translation I'm aware of, from the NIV to the NAB. .  I've changed the translation back to "'imputed' or 'accounted'", reflecting both Protestant and Catholic translations.  Any objections?  jrcagle 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ελλογηται 

message: Hi guys, just wanted to give you all an FYI that this article has been nominated for "Good Article" status.  The nomination is currently on hold as there is a short list of small improvements that I think will push it to the point of being a sincerely "Good Article".  You can see and discuss them on the comments page.  Folks that have not contributed significantly to the article can see the criteria for a "Good Article" here and can vote on it here.  Have a nice day!
Nswinton 02:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the status here? This article's on hold period has expired. IvoShandor 07:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not unusual for GA. It's waiting for someone not involved in the article to remove the hold and decide the nom. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, contact them, there is a 160 article backlog at WP:GAC, its time to decide, I'll give it a couple days. IvoShandor 13:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a sec, has this article had a review? Who put the hold on it? Hmmm. Holds are for use when articles have had a reviewer come along and review it. When a reviewer finds problems they put the article on hold for 2 to 7 days for the issues to be addressed. If there hasn't been a review take it off hold and wait for one which shouldn't be too long in coming considering how long it has been nominated. IvoShandor 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The GA nomination was put on hold less than an hour after nomination by the nominator, who posted a list of concerns on the Comments page. EALacey 14:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole process is very informal. From my experience with GA, this is a typical nominee -- almost there, but not quite. I'd put such articles on hold, list concerns as the nominator did in an interesting way and then wait. We often do not take the close date seriously. On the other side, even if the article fails, it can be improved and renominated. So, I wouldn't take any of this seriously beyond an impetus to improve the article. By the way, WikiProject Lutheranism has listed it as a collaboration of the week. So, rather than talk about the nom, how about we just improve the article? --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless, there is a process to it, the article cannot remain on hold indefinitely, I won't fail it, but don't be surprised if someone else does, as the project has picked up a lot more reviewers lately and is attempting to streamline the process. It is frowned upon for anyone who has significantly contributed to an article to review it for GA, just FYI. IvoShandor 06:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (outdenting) I have no problem with you going ahead and failing it or the nominator withdrawing it. It will not change what we do here one way or another. Re: contributors conducting an article rewiew. Of course! That's why I didn't review this article, but rolled up my virtual sleeves and got to work. 8-) --CTSWyneken(talk) 09:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed the hold.  The problem with the hold is that no GA reviewer will pick it up while it's on hold; meanwhile it's aging and could be removed from the nominations list after 7 days.  I've left the nomination in place, so someone will probably come along and review it within the next couple of weeks, perhaps sooner.  If anyone feels it's not ready, feel free to delete the nomination and resubmit it when you're ready.  Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article nomination 

message: We need to cut down on the external links some.  If possible, we should use the most relevent links as sources, and site them in the notes rather than the external links section.  -- Pastordavid 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems sensible to me. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: As I look at the short lists at the end of each "views" section, I wonder if we'd be better off with a table. I'm not particularly good with wiki tables, however. If others agree with me, could someone set up one in a sandbox for us to look at? --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Positions vs. lists 

message: The section on Orthodox views is short but surprisingly good. I've added one cite to support one of the statements on theosis. 
I've hesitated to add more to the section, but will note that Dmitri (1983) describes the Orthodox Church's teachings on how God judges "each individual on the basis of his whole spiritual state, his relationship and attitude to Christ's work of salvation, his acceptance or rejection of Christ's teaching and redeeming grace, and his use or misuse of them." (p. 64)   Majoreditor 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the added cite. Please feel free to add a bit more. If you can give a fuller picture of the way the doctrine is/has been taught, it would be quite useful. We can always spin sections off into their own articles if this one gets overlong. --CTSWyneken(talk) 09:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox Views 

message: The talk page was around 60K, so I archived everything prior to August 2006.  If anyone objects, please feel free to revert me - it was just a bit much to scroll through everytime.  I also nested the banners.  -- Pastordavid 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: As I began work on improving the article, I noticed that we quote the Council of Trent quite a bit. In light of Vatican II and the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, plus the elevation of Cardinal Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI, I think we would be in a stronger position if we cite them, and if nuances have changed a bit, add these to the section. --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Council of Trent is definitive on the doctrine of justification.  Vatican II added nothing further to our understanding of it. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church references Trent and makes no mention of Vatican II. Fjapinteric (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Views 

message: I do so believe that Mormonism in some way should be included on the article list, since I think mormonism itslef I think could have a say in this and I notice it doesn't include it enthier and such. So then, help it put it on there then.    -Jana  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.232.149 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mormonism]]

message: The 'graph is incoherant as to both topic and meaning.
# The title is "Justification", but what is the topic? We follow a convention that tries hard to avoid titles that aren't nouns, especially by converting verbs to gerunds (e.g. "climb" for the noun, but the verb "climb" to "climbing. Am i mistaken in thinking an at least equally accurate long title for this article could be "Christian accounts of how, when humans are or become justified, that is so"? If so, "Justification" has been chosen as the title in part because we don't like overly long titles any more than ones that are verbs, and in part bcz that 5-syllable word has become a catch-word in theology -- but not bcz "justifying" or "justify" are less relevant or even less central terms to the topic. But since "justification" suggests extra effort by a writer, made because "justifying" wouldn't do, and since the 'graph launches from there into several inflections of one Koine term, i think we need to be clearer than usual about the direct relevance of at least those three words.
# Justification is discussed in the Universalist passage using a different definition -- i would guess "Justification is the state of a human being in a righteous relationship to God", which slightly but importantly expands the existing one. (Or perhaps -- the divine action being so crucial to so many Christian points of view -- it's worth stating the Univ. version (in the same or next sentence) as an exception to a very broad pattern; i don't see the details as crucial as long as the lead 'graph doesn't falsely describe the scope of the article.) This may take more serious research: do Univ. theologians actually use "justification" or "justify", or do they avoid the term -- or recognize the concept but dismiss its relevance, bcz they agree with the current lead's dictdef in imputing an action to "justification"?
# The pseudo-etymology is so bad, and (tho useful when done right) so far from being necessary, that i've removed it to here: doing it, this far from right, is worse than leaving it out until we've got it right. More specifically:
## I think Koine follows a wider pattern of lacking this silly use of "to" as part of the infinitive (you can't create a split infinitive in Latin or German). If δικαιόω means "to declare..." in the sense that it is an un-inflected verb, we should say that, and avoid any confusion that it may simply serve as a noun "to declare...", along the lines of "the act of one who declares...."
## "Justification" is from δικαιόω at most in the sense that it translates a Latin term that translates the Greek one, and i suspect only in the sense that the "root noun δίκαιος,-α,-ον [meaning] righteous[ness]" (emphasis added) is produced by a syntactic transformation on δικαιόω. 
## We must be clear that δικαιόω does not appear in the OT: Perhaps the false statement that it does is supposed to be shorthand for saying that a word reasonably translated that way appears in the Hebrew scriptures; more interestingly, it may mean it's used in the Septuagint, which means that it's a valuable hint (by being the consensus of a large body of the most scholarly practicing Jews of their time, as to the best translation of a Hebrew term -- or several of them -- into Koine) about its proper connotations. The truth has to be determined, and then stated clearly in place of the misleading mush.
## Yes, it's possible to do Christian theology without considering the quintessentially Hebrew meanings of the Jewish theological terms that appear in the X'tian scriptures, just as it's possible to devoutly read the Bible when you only understand English and you wouldn't read (anything you'd consider describing as) "a translation" but only "the real Bible"; we do need to speak up for that PoV. But we also need to speak up for the (still Christian) PoV that there's an inescapable foundation, fully expressible between Hebrew and Aramaic, to Christian theology -- and we deny that PoV by discussing the Koine without the least mention of the Hebrew. (And any relevant Aramaic wouldn't be such a bad idea, but i gather there are no Gospel uses of the term.)
## Of course, to accomplish those 4 points, you have to move that passage out of the lead 'graph. That would have been a good idea anyway, even if the Koine were all that needed discussion. But i don't think it has to leave the lead sec'n.
#: It is thus that for now i have removed (for functional replacement by a separate graph) the portion i show in green from the previous lead 'graph:
#:: In Christian theology, justification is God's act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God. Justification, from the Greek  (dikaioō), "to declare/make righteous", is a word occurring in the books of Romans, Galatians, Titus, and James, among other places; the root noun δίκαιος,-α,-ον righteous occurs throughout both Old and New Testaments.Fred. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) especially the entry "δικαιοω."  The concept of justification occurs also in many Old and New Testament books.
As to my first two points, i don't think those shortcomings will be improved by even temporary removal, and i hope this will start some collaborative process on them.  --Jerzy•t 07:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 'graph 

message: Personally I think the recent change by the above editor adds nothing to this article  and uses inappropriate language.  I treated it as vandalism given the absence of any engagement on the talk page but have reached a 3RR limit.  The same author is making similar edits elsewhere.
Either way I propose that the article revert to the lede before that edit.  Any other opinions?  --Snowded TALK 11:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by Theology10101‎ 

message: Would anyone object to the following addition right before the table? Incidentally there's a comment that the table lacks a reference. I good one would be McGrath's book "Justicia Dei."
Part of the reason for these differences is a difference in the definition of "justification." Starting with Augustine, the Catholic tradition has understood justification as the entire process by which God forgives and then transforms Christians. Based on their reading of the use of "justification" in Paul's letters, the Reformers took justification to refer specifically to God's forgiveness and acceptance. The term "sanctification" was used to refer to the life-long process of transformation. Thus the Catholic term "justification" effectively includes both what Protestants refer to as "justification" and "sanctification."
This difference in definitions can result in confusion, effectively exaggerating the disagreement. However the difference in definitions reflects a difference in substance. In the Protestant concept, justification is a status before God that is entirely the result of God's activity and which continues even when humans sin. Thus using different words for justification and sanctification reflects a distinction between aspects of salvation that are entirely the result of Gods activity, and those which involve human cooperation. The Catholic tradition uses a single term, in part, because it does not recognize a distinction of this type. For the Catholic tradition, while everything originates with God, the entire process of justification requires human cooperation, and serious sin compromises it. Mcgrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought: An
Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993, p
106
Hedrick (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I got around and made an example table with the standard wiki syntax, using the first three rows of your sandbox table. Feel free to use/edit/improve it. Awolf002 02:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I'll take a look! --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've taken the plunge and moved everything to a table. Please feel free to adjust. This is only a first blush attempt. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tweaked a bit. It now looks pretty good to me. Awolf002 15:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I like the table.  Thanks for doing that!  jrcagle 19:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have trouble with loosing the column; I just brought it in from the bullets. On the other hand, its almost impossible to generalize for a whole tradition at all. The best we can do in tables is describe the majority and spell out the nuances in the text. But, I'm easy; if no one objects, I delete the column. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User talk:CTSWyneken/Justification Table Sandbox|Justification Table Sandbox]] 

message: I think this article would be significantly improved by a new structure. My intuition is that a division along the lines of biblical studies / (historical) systematics would be best. This is already the case to some extent, but perhaps the following would have the additional advantage of leading quickly to the NPP debate, which many wikireaders are interested in. Sections which are not yet significant could be mere paragraphs:
1. Biblical Studies
1.1 OT 
1.2 NT (Gospels / Paul)
1.3 Recent Research (say from 19th C)
1.3.1 The history-of-religions school
1.3.2 Bultmann and Käsemann
1.3.3 The New Perspective
1.3.3.1 Stendahl, Sanders & Räisänen
1.3.3.2 Dunn, Wright
1.3.3.3 Reformed responses to the new perspective
Explanation: Here the new aspect is gathering all the NPP bits and bobs together and treating it for what it is: a theme of biblical studies research. Putting the research into its larger context is helpful, as well as differentiating the different strands of the NPP, along with the reformed critic from some evangelical pastors and scholars.
2. History of the Doctrine
2.1 Early Church
2.2 Middle Ages
2.3 Reformation
2.3.1 Protestant Reformers
2.3.2 The Counter-Reformation
2.4 Protestant Orthodoxy
2.4.1 Lutheranism
2.4.2 Calvinism
2.5 Enlightenment criticism
2.6 Kulturprotestantismus
2.8 Recent research - see Biblical studies above!
Explanation: History gives the modern debates the context they need. In the existing article, history is largely subsumed in the "comparison of traditions" - putting the reformation developments on a par with Emanuel Swedenborg! 
3. Denominational positions
3.1 Eastern Orthodoxy
3.2 Anglicanism
3.3 Methodism
3.4 Swedenborg church
3.5 A Comparison of Traditions
Explanation: These particular traditions don't belong in a broad-brush-stroke history of the doctrine. Giving, say, Methodism the same weight as the classical confessions is misleading. That's not a slight - just a measure of influence. Therefore these things separately in part 3. The nifty chart of traditions would fit nicely here.
These are my suggestions for the structure. Please respond - do you think this would be better?
Egoeimisam (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Structure of this Article 

message: Right now, the paragraph on the Old Testament background to justification is fairly slim. I would like to expand it by citing and commenting on relevant OT passages: Gen 15:6; Deut 6:25; 25:1; Isa 53:11; Dan 12:3.
Kyledi (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical References: Old Testament 

message: The statement "However, the prophets were clear that the sacrifices of themselves did not accomplish cleansing" cites Is. 1:11 and Hos. 8:13.  But I don't think the statement truly reflects what is said in those passages.  In both cases, I believe it's abundantly clear that the sacrifices aren't being rejected on account of their obsolescence, or because they "accomplish nothing."  I believe the sacrifices are rejected by God in those passages on account of Israel's lack of obedience, gratitude, adherence to the Law, etc.  
In addition, I think the statement inaccurately attributes this belief that the sacrifices of themselves accomplishing nothing to "the prophets," Isaiah and Hosea far from any type of majority, and also inaccurately describes their stance as "clear."  
I don't know what other scriptures can be cited to support any indication that material sacrifices were surrogate, or of themselves accomplished nothing.  I don't know how the consensus view of the prophets ought to be described.  But this statement truly needs to be removed or profoundly modified by someone who does know these things. Raolyn13 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Testament, Prophets 

message: Should there be a section added regarding the debate around justification and the New Perspective -and Tom Wright? (Be Dave 22:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely, as soon as someone scholarly can figure out precisely what he believes :)  jrcagle 00:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New perspective

message: The chief problem with this article is that it uses an abundance of theological jargon instead of plain English and therefore cannot be understood by a typical Wikipedia visitor.  
I would go so far as to say that it was written in terminology that is specific to a particular sub-set of the Christian community and does not reflect the impartiality required of Wikipedia articles. 
Further, it omits human beings from the definition, "God" and "sin" are mentioned, but not the sinner. In the phrase "God's act of removing the guilt and penalty of sin" does not have an object. Who is having his or her guilt removed? 
Also the phrase "Christ's atoning sacrifice" presupposes a very extensive knowledge of Christian history and theology.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.74.3 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Justification (theology). 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/20070926233830/http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1650 to http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1650
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512021427/http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/577 to http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/577
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512021427/http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/577 to http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/577
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) 21:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified