Talk:Imputed righteousness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Lutheranism / Calvinism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism (marked as High-importance).

Not all Protestants are Lutheran or Calvinists!!![edit]

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


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

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

I have marked the largest section as requiring wikifying & cleanup. DFH 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I have attempted to clean this up with little success. It needs less of "...they claim..." and more of a debate. Douglike 12:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Imputation of Adam's sin[edit]

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

Rewrote first section[edit]

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

Mass deletions by unregistered users[edit]

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

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

Controversial sentence[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

Differing views about imputed righteousness[edit]

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