Talk:Justification (theology)/Archive 1

2004 comments

Hey, first time poster here (please forgive if I'm violating some format for talk pages). I do not feel that this article is entirely NPOV. Justification appears to be presented here in a way that advocates a Calvinistic perspective. At least that's the overwhelming impression I received after reading the article. The article acknowledges that the doctrine of justification is disputed, but fails to articulate the nature of any position other than that of a Calvinist. I am not accusing the author of deliberately violating Wikipedia's NPOV policies, but as I understand them, they seem to hold that if disagreement generally exists about a topic, the different points of view should be spelled out in the article. I do not know if the intention of the author was simply to use the Calvinist perspective as an example, rather than to endorse the Calvinist position. At the very least I believe the Catholic and non-Calvinist Protestant perspectives on this issue be given the same amount of treatment as the the Calvinist view. If I had more theological training, I would feel qualified to add these positions myself. Again, I could be wrong, but as a "passerby" on this article, I felt that it overtly advocates a Calvinist viewpoint.

24.164.62.67anon

Yes, that it does. That's apparently because a Calvinist has written the Calvinism sections, and few others have contributed. My understanding also is that the Eastern Orthodox churches do not use the concept of justification, and that should be mentioned if it isn't already. Smerdis of Tlön 02:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How would we go about flagging this as disputed?

24.164.62.67anon

To do that, you would need to add the {{disputed}} tag to the article in chief. I would question whether that's necessary here; the article notes the POV chiefly stated as Calvinist, and to restore balance would mean to write the corresponding Roman Catholic and non-Calvinist presentations. I don't believe that the dispute comes from whether the Calvinist section correctly describes Calvinism. Smerdis of Tlön 16:43, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does that matter though? The fact that the article kind of admits that it's not NPOV doesn't change the fact that it's not NPOV. If I wrote an article about Taiwan that was obviously biased in favor of Taiwanese independence and admitted that I was being biased that wouldn't make it okay. Wikipedia's policies on this matter clearly indicate that if a topic is controversial or disputed, the different points of view should be discussed. This article makes plain that a dispute exists and only presents one side of the dispute. While the author does a good job of describing (and endorsing) the Calvinist position, this article is not about Calvinism, it is about justification. The Calvinist position on the issue is just one slice of the issue, and at the very least the article is incomplete. Maybe the author was thinking that he or she would plug in the Calvinist perspective and wait for someone else to come by and fill in the rest, but I for one wouldn't write an article about a disputed or controversial topic if I only knew one side's position on the issue.

RhesusmanRhesusman

The introduction shows a familiarity with other POVs. The question is whether the author could give a truly fair hearing. It would make sense from someone else to do the other sections. So, I added two sections and hopefully someone from the respective POVs can fill in the text. If noone shows up, I could give it a shot but I come from the same perspective as the original author. -- Rich Blinne 1 December 2004, 00:53 (UTC)

Attempt at Addressing NPOV Issue

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)

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)

1998 Joint Declaration

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)

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)

2005 Comments

As a Catholic, I have added a few simple presentations of the Catholic understanding to the Catholic section without removing the dense 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article. I tried to keep these as nonpolemical as possible, unlike the current Protestant section. I've added some Catholic and Orthodox external links and book recommendations, and the external links now include the Lutheran/Catholic "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" mentioned above. Someone still needs to do some serious work on the Protestant section, though, because it doesn't do justice to different Protestant theologies of justification. Johnaugus

I feel that both the Catholic and the Protestant sections need work. The Protestant section needs a great deal of clarification, and the Catholic section needs a major trim. This page is on my "to do" list, but I may not get to it for a while. KHM03 10:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not only does this entire article need work - it needs a fresh start. The RC section seems far too combative where it ought to spend time on simply laying out the RC teaching, and the Protestant section is hopelessly muddled, especially as there is a great deal of dispute among Protestants as to what justification is all about --- there are many who stand in the same area of the field with Rome, finding Justification and Sanctification to be part of the same ball of wax, while others (esp. Lutherans) would take issue (to put it mildly) with the common Protestant understanding. Such disputes desperately need to be ironed out. --Rekleov 13:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the Catholic section needs shortening, I will remove the old Catholic Encyclopedia article and provide only a link to it. It is full of jargon that is only helpful to professional theologians. I will also remove most of the references to Protestantism in the rest of the Catholic section. But someone desperately needs to rework the Protestant section. It is non-representative of different Protestants and contains several offensive attacks on the Catholic position. Johnaugus

I think your edits would be helpful. I and likely others will work on the Protestant section (although, as I stated previously, that might be a little while); it is important that the Protestant perspective(s) on justification stand on their own and are not reliant upon criticism of Rome. I'll get to it! KHM03 21:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "criticism of Rome," I've sincerely tried to do the same in the Catholic section: presenting the Catholic view for what it is with as little reference to Protestant views as possible. There is still a brief section on "the problem of sola fide," but its primary purpose is to express the Catholic understanding of sola fide given the obvious controversy, and I've tried to make it less polemical while retaining a true expression of concern. If you have recommendations on that, I welcome them here. Best wishes with the Protestant section! Finally, a note on terminology in the Catholic section: Though the term "Roman Catholic" is common, even in Catholic circles, many Catholics are offended by the term because it arose from attempts to belittle and degrade Catholicism. Eastern Catholics also tend to find it offensive. So I do not recommend using the term "Roman Catholic." Johnaugus

Maybe the discussion as to whether to refer to the denomination as a whole should be "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" is better argued on the page for Roman Catholic Church. Ahh, names! They can be funny. We try and say something with them about our self-image, but often exclude in the process. For instance, I am a United Methodist; I consider myself very "orthodox", ver "catholic"...and also consider my own denomination to be a "Church of God" and "Church of Christ". Oh, the silly things humans do! I wasn't aware, however, that folks find "Roman Catholic" offensive...for me, it is simply a mark of those in the Catholic "movement" (for lack of a better term) who recognize the authority of Rome, and affirm of the traditional Catholic, Thomistic theological system. Why might it be offensive? KHM03 22:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I should take that issue to the Roman Catholic Church page. By the way, I understand that United Methodist Church members consider themselves "orthodox" and "catholic," of course! But at least the UMC calls itself the United Methodist Church, a name chosen by United Methodists, rather than everyone calling it by a name created by others in order to belittle it. Yes, names are funny. I think it's best to try to call people by the names they themselves have chosen. Johnaugus

Protestant section

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)

Recent edits still look like a mess to me (and pretty NPOV as well). Any thoughts/suggestions? KHM03 20:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Printed resources

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)

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)

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)

As a separate page, with a link to it from this "main" page? KHM03 13:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

I like it! Do it! I'm going on a wikiholiday for a week or so, but will gladly look at it and work on it upon my return! KHM03 13:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The resources currently listed in the Catholic section are deliberately varied. A layman with no theological training will probably not read the Balthasar and Lubac, but a theologian would need to read those rather than the popular-level works. One of the difficulties with the justification topic is that it is intrinsically related to the Catholic nature/grace controversy. Catholics need to know this (which is why it's in the resources section), though most Protestants do not (which is why it's not in the main body). With regard to Protestant/Catholic differences, many Catholic theologians think the root of the divide is the difference between Nominalist philosophical presuppositions and Realist ones, so some of the books address that. And finally, though "hundreds of fine Protestant books" specifically about justification and nothing else could probably be listed, the same is not true for Catholic books. Most Catholic treatments of justification occur in other contexts (e.g. books about sacramental life, mystical theology, etc.). It is difficult to find Catholic resources about justification and nothing else. (Catholics may be a little more similar to Orthodox in this regard.) So when you do find one, you want to let people know it exists! Johnaugus

"the problem of sola fide"

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)

Fresh start

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)

Moved Orthodox Section

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)

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)

Lutheran Section

I'll work on a thorough revision of the Lutheran section. It's not bad, but I have some resources that will help organize it better. I'll be working at it off line and will watch not to overwrite changes in it that occur between now and then. Does anyone want me to post my thoughts here first before adding it to the article? --CTSWyneken 20:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and was bold. If I stepped on any toes, I apologize. Feel free to revert and we can discuss it if it is a problem. --CTSWyneken 12:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a more thorough lookover tomorrow after I get my grades in. For now, I would ask that you restore the bulleted lists; I intentionally provided those for the sake of comparison amongst the different views. Thanks for your help; it's nice to have Luther experts on board! jrcagle 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put back the bullets, and corrected one that was in error. I'm uneasy with this kind of listing, because I think that it is hard to compare apples to oranges. Lutheran theology of Justification is quite different than that of other Christian traditions. Also, I think it needs some help visually. May I invite an editor from the classical Reformed tradition to take a look? --CTSWyneken 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to provide some information about how Justification and Sanctification interact in Lutheran theology since other views mix Sanctification and Justification. I had been collecting some notes from Pieper to use on this section, but upon reading what we now have, I think what I was working on was going to be too detailed and too long. Tkleinsc 13:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I thought I did that. Is there anything in particular you'd like to add? I think we need to keep the whole section as concise as possible, but we certainly can add more. Pieper would make good citation material, but I'd rather steer away from the thick prose.

Also, do you have a copy of Braaten-Jensen? We still have to do the ELCA viewpoint, esp. the JDDJ. Bob --CTSWyneken 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading it, I suppose that one paragraph distinguishes Justification and Sanctification enough. I don't have Braaten-Jenson and I won't really be able to help on the ELCA/JDDJ viewpoint on Justification. Tkleinsc 18:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CTSWyneken. Sorry about the "can" v. "cannot" be lost; I have no idea how I missed that on proofing. Comments:

• The first paragraph in the Luther and Lutherans section ("'This one firm rock...'") feels odd to me, almost like an advertisement for the view rather than an explanation of it. What would you think about moving that paragraph to a later point? Then the flow could be something like History --> Doctrine --> Implications ('This one firm rock' goes here) --> Summary.

Upon reflection, I think you're actually musing over Luther's own words here. My thought in putting it in is to emphasize that for Luther and Lutherans, justification is the most important, fundemental doctrine of our material principle. As far as the tone goes, very little of Luther's actual words are not in a homiletical voice. What you're reading is his typical style. The difference here is that, while he loved hyperbole, this one is different. He really means that the whole of Christian doctrine "stands or falls" with this one teaching. For him it is the gospel. I'll come back later. It's going to be very busy here this week. In the mean time, Preus, Robert D. "Luther and the Doctrine of Justification" [online]Concordia Theological Quarterly 48 (1984) no. 1:1-15. Available from http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1458 is a helpful essay. --CTSWyneken 12:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this: "“This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification,” insisted Martin Luther, “is the chief article of the whole Christian doctrine, which comprehends the understanding of all godliness.” Lutherans tend to follow Luther in this matter. For the Lutheran tradition, the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone for Christ’s sake alone is the material principle upon which all other teachings rest."?

That change in language removes any neutrality objections that I had. jrcagle 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure! And here I thought you were after "Luther insisted." 8-) --CTSWyneken 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's important to mention Luther's heavy reliance on Augustine. His emphasis on helplessness outside of Christ doesn't make sense otherwise (i.e., it appears as a novel doctrine).

• It would be great to have a style editor take a whack at it.

• I agree that lists can oversimplify, but for the reader who is unfamiliar with the issue, a side-by-side comparison can be really helpful. Even though the Orthodox view doesn't really map to the Reformed view very well (because of a different underlying theory of the atonement), it can still be useful to compare and constrast some of the different features of their theories. No?

• I'm going to add an "early church" section to remove a structural POVism. As it stands, the article appears to claim that the RC church carried on the early church view in toto, which is not really accurate. Having a separate early church section will make it possible to clarify the history in later sections.

jrcagle 03:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My style here is intended more for variety and to make the point that, from Luther on, this doctrine is central for Lutherans.

I want to avoid going into too much detail on the dependence upon Augustine. I'm afraid we'll loose people when we try to explain how Luther differs from him. (VERY slightly, but very importantly for Lutherans. Most people will say, "huh?"

The Early Church section is a good idea, but we have to be careful. It would be quite easy to favor one view over another of what those folk said. After all, Catholics, Reformed, and Lutherans all claim to have the Bible right, and although I, of course, think Lutherans are correct 8-), it is very easy to describe things the way we would like them.

For this whole thing to be comprehensible to a person cruising by. So we need to be careful in how we do this.

Please remember, I also have to find a way to explain what the ELCA thinks and the JDDJ.

Well, good thoughts. I hear the twins coming in from the prom and church calls all too early tomorrow, so I'll come back later. --CTSWyneken 07:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Justification losable for Lutherans??

Rekleov, CTSWyneken (and any others who want to chime in),

There has been a bit of reversion going on in the Lutheran bulleted list: justification has gone back and forth between "cannot be lost" and "can be lost." Does that reflect a genuine difference of opinion, or is it simply a confusion?

If the former, let's discuss. If not, I've reverted to "cannot" under my understanding of Luther's view.

Thanks, jrcagle 17:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Simply confusion. Lutherans maintain that you can lose your justification (read salvation) by rejecting God's grace and walking away. We see it as a mystery -- like one God in Three Persons, Jesus = Fully God and Fully Man at the Same Time, and a number of other things. How the seeming contradictions fit together we say, literally, "God only knows."

Said simply: If we go to Heaven, it's all God's fault. If we go to Hell, it's all our fault. I can provide quotations if necessary. --CTSWyneken 18:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Does that represent Luther's view, Lutherans' views, or both? My understanding from reading Bondage of the Will is that Luther took Augustine's line on predestination. However, I also have understood Lutherans as following Melancthon's view rather than Luther's. If that is the case, then it would seem that justification was considered permanent by Luther, even if not by Lutherans. Thanks, jrcagle 19:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe both, but will double check it. I'm not thoroughly familiar with the arguments in BOTW, however. --CTSWyneken 19:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

New Paragraph in Lutheran Section

An anonymous user introduced this into the Lutheran section:

However, in the past thirty years research on Luther has advanced new conclusions. The "New Finnish Interpretation of Luther," advanced by University of Helsinki professor Tuomo Mannermaa among others, observes a more mystical stream of thought within Luther's writings. His writing makes clear that there is a distinction between Luther's thought and the more systematic, sometimes crypto-Calvinist writings of Philipp Melanchthon, Martin Chemnitz, and more importantly, Friedrich Schleiermacher. Here, Luther's theory of atonement begins with nods toward the Christus Victor model predominant in Eastern Orthodoxy. Luther's soteriology is thereafter modeled on a process of salvation that, while making a distinction between instantaneous justification and the process of sanctification, involves a mystical union through Christ truly present in the faith and in the Eucharist. It is very much akin to theosis.

There are a few reasons why I don't think it belongs.

1 -- It is uncited, but this can be fixed. 2 -- This is about what Lutherans believe and have believed. Luther is here only to introduce this. I know very few Lutherans who can understand much less agree with this paragraph. 3 -- Luther's words very clearly do not express salvation as a process. I can quote them, and endless dogmatians on that one, if needed. 4 -- If this paragraph goes anywhere, it should be on the Luther page.

Unless there are objections, therefore, I'll leave the paragraph here. If we put it back, I would ask that the author cite his sources and include the "old" view of Luther that Mannermaa departs from. --CTSWyneken 00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I just read:

Mannermaa, Tuomo. "The Doctrine of Justification and Christology Chapter A, Section One of The Christ Present in Faith" [online]Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (2000) no. 3:206-239. Available from [online Version) I do not find anything like the above in it. Does anybody else? --CTSWyneken 00:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mannermaa & co. miss the forest for the trees. While there are some passages from Luther's writings (almost none from the confessional documents in which he had a hand) that support their thesis, these are not generally representative of the larger body of Luther's work, and are pretty much cherry-picked from here, and here, and now there, paying little attention to the textual and temporal context of the works quoted. Mentioning Mannermaa's thesis might not be bad; what is here, however, is inaccurate, and on more than one level: Chemnitz as crypto-Calvinist? Really? If you want to read more, check out the Jenson/Braaten-edited work that Eerdmans put out a few years back, as well as Marquart's review of the Finnish view of Luther that also appeared in the CTQ. (btw, added a colon to mark off the quoted paragraph above] --Rekleov 03:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is the Lutheran section, not the Luther section. That makes a difference as to what ought to be presented. --Rekleov 04:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me interject here that this section *was* originally the "Luther and Lutherans" section, and that was deliberate. It was my intent to take a historical perspective as a device to avoid the heavily POV approach of the article that preceded this one. I would prefer to keep Luther's views at the top of this paragraph, and then Lutheran views (if different -- e.g., ELCA) at the bottom, so that the history of ideas can be clear to the reader. That is also the reason that I would like to have Augustine's influence on Luther mentioned, as it is a clear and discernable connecting link in the history.

To a non-Lutheran such as me, the added P appears to be inside baseball; I don't even really understand it (although I'll check the link you provided, Bob). jrcagle 19:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is I don't understand it either. 8-) The article I linked to is much clearer. It examines the role of the Jesus in receiving all the sins of the world and the role of the child of God in receiving all the righteousness of Christ. The paragraph seems to suggest that Luther believed, according to Mannermaa, or so it says, that salvation is a process. If all I've seen of Luther on this subject, it is far from the truth.

That being said, I'm not a historian of systematics, so I'm not entirely clear what Augustine said about Justification, much less its influence on Luther. Do you have a paper you could point me to on this one? --CTSWyneken 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Forensic" v. "Merely Forensic"

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 [1] and non-RC source [2], 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)

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)

One More Thought

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 [3].

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: [4]). 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)

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)

See if you like the current version. jrcagle 12:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

POV gentle reminder

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Justification (theology)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Good Article Nomination== I think this article is very near to being accepted as a "Good Article". There is only one pressing issue I noticed (though I'm far from being any kind of theologian), and a few things that could be improved. The stub tag in the "sola fide" section. Is the section still unfinished? What needs to happen to get it finished? There is no reference section in this article. Adding references with statements and having a populated footnote section would be helpful. Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes should help here. This article could use some images to give the eye a rest as it's read over. Just some appropriate images pertaining to the demographic whose theology is being explained in each section would probably be fine. It probably wouldn't hurt to start rigorously inviting some notable editors who have comtributed significantly to other scholarly writings to come and take a good, hard look at the article and refine it a bit. Take a good look at Wikipedia:What is a good article? and consider whether this article might be too long, and might be able to made more brief. They suggest ~25k and I think it's at ~32k right now. It seems to me that the bulk of what is needed for a Good Article is here, it just needs polish and refinement at this point. Nswinton 21:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC) I have some additional comments: Another useful link might be Wikipedia:WikiProject_Calvinism#Taking an article to the next level -- There are a few links in there for those who are heading for something higher than a B-class article. Actually, there is a references section. I've just renamed it from "Notes" to "References", because this is what other Wikipedia articles seem to be calling it. I think it would be difficult to make the article much shorter and cover the subject matter, unless we have a few more separate articles such as Justification by Faith Alone (The page on Atonement does something like this already). The reason many of these Theology articles are so long is the necessity of representing such a multiplicity of views (all of which are well-represented). -- TimNelson 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC) == References == So what's the right way to do the reference section? There is a link on the page to a completely separate Bibliography page (Justification Bibliography (theology)), which seems reasonable in light of the large number of sources. But, taken together with the External Links page and the Essays page, the reader is a bit perplexed as to which Bibliography is primary. So, should the article: Compress the three sections into one, Streamline all three sections by reducing the headcount, Both, Neither, or Other? jrcagle 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC) What TimNelson has done with the References section (which only covers the "Lutheran views" section at this point) is probably the best way to go at it. A good way to further augment a completely populated footnote section (read: every section should be referenced like the "Lutheran views" one is now, or better) would be to have a "Further Reading" page, with all the essays and external links on it. The footnote section that is created as proper references are made will be a fine bibliography IMO. Moving the essays/external links/etc. to that new page would reduce the size of the article a good bit as well. So basically I'm saying that all the sources will have to be specifically pointed to the facts they're supporting within the article, and everything else should be moved to another supporting source page. I hope that makes sense. Feel free to ask clarifying questions. Nswinton 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Justification in the Gospels

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)

The section about justification in early church says that st. paul writes about imputed righteousness in Rom.5

This is followed by the lutheran section which claims that the lutheran belief is about imputed righteousness.

while it is true that lutherans believe in imputed righteousness, there is no reason to conclude that Rom. 5 talks about monergestic, imputed righteousness like the lutherans.

Rom. 5 along with James 2:22 seems to lead to a conclusion of infused righteousness, which is the Catholic position

I have removed the notion of imputed righteousness from the section about early christianity - rewriting it as justification apart from works alone!

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)

Polite Request #2

To 81.206.70.147: Please sign in and discuss changes before you remove valid material and insert tendentious material. If something needs to be changed, that can be accomplished through the usual process. Thanks, jrcagle 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "imputed sin and righteousness" in referring to Paul's writing in Rom. 3 and Rom. 5 is misleading. Whether or not "imputed" is used in the same sense as "imputed righteousness" is referred to in the presentation of Protestant doctrine further down in the article is a moot point - simply because it is definitely misleading to those who would read the article. Such NON-LITERAL quotations from the Bible is not helpful, as is illustrated by the misleading effect in jrcagle's use of "imputed".

Neither is there any reason to imply that Paul writes about imputed sin and imputed righteousness. The word imputed is not to be found in Rom 3, Rom 4 or Rom 5 (unless in spuriously translated Bible translations).

I have reverted back to contents which can be LITERALLY found in the epistles.

One further reason for doing this is to entirely cover the contents of Rom. 3 and Rom 5. (regarding the theology of justification), in contrast to jrcagle's method of covering it by one misleading phrase - namely "imputed sin and righteousnes". This is important for reasons of COMPLETENESS.

The changes I have added are merely what can be LITERALLY traced back in Rom. 3 and Rom. 5 - with no particular interpretations or POV added in. This is important for reasons of NEUTRALITY.

21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)krasp

Thanks for your contributions. I appreciate the desire to stick to contents that can literally be found in the epistles; that in fact is the goal of that section. Further discussion is needed on the issue of 'imputed sin', which is literally found in Rom. 5.13 "αχρι γαρ νομου αμαρτια ην εν κοσμω αμαρτια δε ουκ ελλογειται μη οντος νομου"; the word ελλογειται means 'imputed', 'reckoned', 'charged to one's account.' Here are a couple of online sources: [5] and [6]. Even the New American Bible uses the word 'accounted' to translate ελλογειται.

It is important, IMO, to include the issue of ελλογειται in this section because (a) the word is Paul's and (b) it contributes to the later discussion in the Reformation.

A similar thought is relevant to Romans 8.30ff

And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ...

This text is literally in the Scriptures, and it is relevant to the later arguments concerning 'eternal security'; therefore, it should be included.

At this point, I think it would be best if we assumed the best of one another, without charges of misleading, and tried to find a way to express the Scriptural data in a way that does not prejudice the issues. jrcagle 19:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

I agree with the move of the Orthodox section to a point earlier in the article. In fact, the Orthodox section was originally first in the article, but was later moved by an Orthodox contributor. I vote to keep the Orthodox section either as krasp has placed it, or even above the RC section.

On the other hand, I disagree with adding the "Justification in the Bible" header and separating it from the views of the early church. The writings of the apostles were both a legitimate part of early church theology *and* the source for the theology of the patristics. It made a lot of sense to me to include both the Scriptures and the patristics as one section together rather than separating them. Is there a reason not to do so?

krasp's edit to sola fide is problematic

Protestants meanwhile hold tenaciously to the sola fide formula, charging that without it, the Christian is led down a path that is inevitably Pelagian and Judaizing - an untrue allegation considering that the Catholic Church has firmly rejected both Pelagianism and Judaizism.

(the bolded words are krasp's additions). I fully appreciate that the RC church rejects the charges. However, it *is* the case that Protestants make them, and it is also the case that it is impossible to have a full account of charges, responses, and counter-charges in this section. I would vote that either (a) the charges be relativized to 'Catholics charge this about Protestants; Protestants charge that about Catholics', or else (b) the charges and their responses be given a much more systematic treatment. (a) was the way I wrote that section. I'd be happy to move to (b) if there is a great need for it. As krasp writes it, though, the Protesant response is judged as being "untrue", which is impossibly POV. Protestants believe the charges of Pelagianism and Judaizing to be true, despite the firm rejection; Catholics do not. I vote for reversion here.

They charge that the alleged abuses Luther saw were a logical outworking of a Catholic system that includes good works as a necessary condition for justification.

This should not be a matter of controversy requiring the qualifier alleged. All sides agreed at the time and now that there were abuses, which is why the council of Trent spent a lot of effort rectifying those abuses. To give one example, Trent forbade the sale of indulgences. The sale of indulgences is widely agreed to be a real abuse that sparked Luther's walk down the Reformation path.

Your thoughts? jrcagle 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A further point for discussion:

The Orthodox see salvation as a process of theosis, in which the individual is united to Christ and the life of Christ is reproduced within him. Thus, in one sense, justification is an aspect of theosis. However, it is also the case that those who are baptized into the church and experience Chrismation are considered to be cleansed of sin [7]. Hence, it is difficult to map the Orthodox concept of justification to the Catholic and Protestant concepts. In the words of one Orthodox Bishop...

was changed to

The Orthodox see salvation as a process of theosis, in which the individual is united to Christ and the life of Christ is reproduced within him. Thus, in one sense, justification is an aspect of theosis. However, it is also the case that those who are baptized into the church and experience Chrismation are considered to be cleansed of sin [8]. Hence, the Orthodox concept of justification cannot be reconciled to Protestant concepts, while it is not considered as being in disagreement to Catholic concepts. In the words of one Orthodox Bishop...

"Cannot be reconciled" is possibly true, but not definitely. I would prefer qualification. OTOH, "Not considered as being in disagreement" is probably false. The Eastern Orthodox doctrine has no doctrine, to my knowledge, of a Final Justification; nor is there any sense in the EO of Christ's merit being granted to overcome the guilt of original sin. It is important for the Eastern church's doctrine of justificfation that people do not inherit the guilt of original sin and therefore have no need to be cleansed of it; this is a central feature of the RC doctrine of justification. [9] [10]

What concerns motivated you to make the change? Perhaps those can be addressed. jrcagle 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't hear back from you, so I went ahead and made changes. See whether the new version addresses your concerns. jrcagle 20:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ελλογηται

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. [11][12]. 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)

Good Article nomination

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)

What is the status here? This article's on hold period has expired. IvoShandor 07:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

External links

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)

That seems sensible to me. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Table of Positions vs. lists

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)

Orthodox Views

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)

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)

Archive

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)

Catholic Views

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)

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)

Good Article Nomination

Hello. I would like to review this article. I need to read this article carefully but I have a few comments at the moment:

• It seems to me that the lead satisfies the requirements of WP:LEAD. But please double check to make sure that it satisfies "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Many users read only the lead, so it should be self-contained and cover the main points. It should not "tease" the reader by hinting at important information that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article."

• More impotantly, this article uses primary sources(direct quotes from Bible) as reference. This is perfectly okay when an scholar writes articles but it is usually discouraged to use primary sources directly as references in wikipedia because it can get close to WP:OR. Let me explain the reason: There are thousands of verses in the Bible and all these verses should be viewed together, interpreted together in their context. Only an scholar who has a comperhensive knowledge of the bible can quote some verses to show a point. Even then, Christians and Jews use the same hebrew bible but interpret it differently. Therefore we need secondary sources for statements: According to scholar X, Y is true. I have noticed that this is very important. Sometimes we may understand biblical verses in a way they were not originally understood. We have different translations etc etc. So, would you please add references from secondary sources (Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources). Thanks --Aminz 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I can see your point on the Scripture verses, although I don't know if I'd take it quite that far. After all, pulling together a certain set of quotes from a variety of sources could be seen as the same thing. Who are we to interpret what these scholars say? (or as I've seen in other articles, that they are scholars... 8-) ) Still, it would be helpful to have scholarly opinion added. This is especially true since, not so much the list of Scriptures, but the interpretation of them can be seen as a POV... --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point CTSWyneken. According to the wikipedia policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true." - We can write various notable views some of which may be wrong; but that's wikipedia. All we need here is to add new references in addition to the original references to the article. The first reference for example is great:"Fred. W. Danker, ... (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)[The works published by university presses are more reliable than others]. I think Britannica Encyclopedia, Catholic Encyclopedia, etc etc are easy-to-use sources. Cheers, --Aminz 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. In order to follow policies like WP:V, WP:NOR, we must find the best review articles/publications for each discussed item. What will be more difficult is to reach WP:NPOV, which depends heavily on what views are notable and which are held by the majority or minority. I for one do not pretend to know that. We will need clear, verifiable attributions to sort this part out. Awolf002 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see how this can pass the GA criteria. There is a glaring ommission regarding the status of Gentiles - how does the relationship between Jews and Gentiles fit in with justification? There is no evidence that any editor of this page is familiar with recent theological developments in this area. Many people will come here hoping for an explanation of the New Perspective on Paul discussion concerning justification. I really hope someone can step up and put the necessary work into this article, as well as the one on the NPP. StAnselm 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is what you feel is most important for this article, please feel free to jump in and help to expand the article's coverage of that aspect of justification. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Please be bold! Please do me a favor, though, and cite sources. We've already got a bit of work to do to document what's here... --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and defaced the article with fact tags and clarification tags which I felt may be necessary :P --Aminz 01:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As a note, this article has minimal chance at GA with the reliance on the primary source, the Bible. This is original research unless it has been published by a reliable secondary source. It isn't up to editors at Wikipedia to interpret the Bible and then publish our interpretations. Verifiability not truth. While it is not up to use to interpret scholars, we can judge the reliability of sources by the amount of editorial oversight. In general so called scholarly sources have intense amounts of peer scrutiny before anything is published in their pages. We can rely on this published information to compose an article. While the assertions may indeed be true simply referencing them to the relevant passages in the Bible will not do. IvoShandor 10:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Likely that you know this, just making sure. : ) IvoShandor 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was one of the two reasons that this article didn't pass GA at the moment. --Aminz 10:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that we should add scholarly citations here, it concerns me that folks are ready to consider scripture citations as original research. We summarize other sources and cite them. How is this any different? I could argue that summarizing reliable sources is intepreting them as well. Scripture citations are necessary to direct a user to what the article is referring to, especially when it provides a direct quote or close paraphrase.

The issue that the Original Research policy was intended to combat was one of neutral point of view. So, I believe, where there is little disagreement in scholarly circles on the meaning of a passage, there is no reason why it can't be cited. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point but I think it shouldn't be very hard for someone familiar with the literature to find sources for these statements. --Aminz 11:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In theory, yes. In practice, mind-numbingly painstaking and tedious. Each source will make its own points, and, while they will be similar to what we have, no one is going to make all of the points or use the same set of passages or say things the same way, even if they are in harmony with each other. What you are asking for is a horrendous amount of work. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism

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)

Lead 'graph

The 'graph is incoherant as to both topic and meaning.

1. 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.
2. 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"?
3. 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:
   1. 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...."
   2. "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.
   3. 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.
   4. 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.)
   5. 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 δικαιόω (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.<ref>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." </ref> 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)

Recent edits by Theology10101‎

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)

Justification Table Sandbox

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.

Hedrick (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In line with my proposal to replace all the bullet summaries with a table, I tried my hand at using an HTML table to do the job. Please take a look at it on: User talk:CTSWyneken/Justification Table Sandbox. The text is all fair game and you all are welcome to tweak it. I'm just working on the concept. If everyone likes (or doesn't object anyway) I'll replace all the bullets with it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanks! I'll take a look! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I tweaked a bit. It now looks pretty good to me. Awolf002 15:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the table. Thanks for doing that! jrcagle 19:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I think the table is a rgeat idea, much easier than a seperate list in every section. One little quibble: the last section "Justification & Atonement." I don't know that each tradition can be assigned one single atonement theory. For example: Aulen's Christus Victor (which seems to be meant in the Orthodox section of the table) is drawn explicitly from the Lutheran tradition -- yet many Lutherans would not recognize Christus Victor, instead opting for substitutionary/penal atonement. I would suggest leaving that last section off. -- Pastordavid 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

References

The Structure of this Article

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)

Biblical References: Old Testament

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)

Old Testament, Prophets

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)

The matter above is no longer an issue. Call it  Done Raolyn13 (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

New perspective

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))

Definitely, as soon as someone scholarly can figure out precisely what he believes :) jrcagle 00:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (Seriously ... yes, he is an important figure in the justification discussion and deserves mention).

Yes, there should.

I have added relevant material to the article on "imputed righteousness." I started there because of a request for contributions. The problem is that very similar additions are needed to righteousness, imputed righteousness, justification, and justification by faith.

The NPP started out as a critique of traditional Protestant understanding 1st Cent Judaism, particularly its supposed legalism. The 4 articles as currently written don't actually have much on that. As the article on NPP correctly observes, the NPP refers to a group of scholars who don't agree with each other in many areas. I'm mostly familiar with Wright. As I understand him, he mostly agrees with the classical Reformed concept of justification as status before God. What he disagrees on is how it is established. The Reformers saw it as a legal decision, where Christ's righteousness was credited to us. Wright believes (correctly, in my view) that this isn't what Paul meant. First, righteousness is itself a status, not a matter of moral or religious perfection. Second, we're justified not by having Christ's moral and religious perfection credited to us, but by the activity of the Holy Spirit, which unites us to Christ, and through which we die to sin and are raised to new life. Of course this concept is not lacking in the Reformers, particularly Calvin.

Hedrick (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There definitely should be indication, if not a fuller discussion, of the ongoing debate in Christian circles in interaction with Dunn over justification. As it stands the article is out of date — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.151.148 (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Untitled section

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)

A central problem for describing "justification" in a neutral way arises when Christian theology is reduced to Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and their doctrines are presented as the only alternatives for understanding it, either as an idea, or as a theological action. Similarly, the English word "justification" has a contentious relationship to the original terms used in the Classical-Hebrew and Ancient-Greek foundational texts. For these reasons, among others, it would be best to write the article as a history of ideas: ideas expressed in especially Classical Hebrew and Ancient Greek (to which we have access through the work of various types of authorities/experts, from philologists and exegetes to church theologians); ideas expressed by various theologians over time; ideas expressed by scholars of religion who analyse the aforementioned ideas altogether.Stjohn316am (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)