|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sanctification article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern / Lutheranism / Methodism / Latter Day Saints||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 2004 discussions
- 2 Attention
- 3 Sept 10, 2005
- 4 External link/link spam
- 5 Holiness Movement
- 6 Roman Catholic Section
- 7 POV in lead
- 8 Spam protection filter
- 9 title
- 10 Added warning tags
- 11 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Section
- 12 Merge?
- 13 External Links
- 14 Calvinism
- 15 Superfluous Hyperlinking
Hi everyone. Newbie here. Having both Baptist and A of G roots, as well as Lutheran. Episcopalian, Calvary Chapel, Vineyard and so called "non-denominational background", I, as you can imagine, have a heart to see the Body unified. When I read that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was linked to Sanctification, my first reaction was no wonder the Baptist are ticked off. Full on Charasmatics and hard line Baptists can find their common ground in our marvelous Lord. Point #1: All Christians have the Holy Spirit at salvation upon accepting Christ. #2 Any second touch or B of the HS can not be linked to personal works, achievement in holiness, or elite favor. #3 Sorry Baptists--the Holy Spirit is alive and well and distributes all gifts listed in the Bible. There is no Aposolic age/church age division. More: Pentacostals though you may not have intended it, your message has made Baptists feel like you think they don't have the Holy Spirit and that you are living on a higher plane. Be nice to your brothers--we are all in this together. There is no higher plane until God lifts us up in glory.
Hello! Regarding the comment made in a recent edit summary: This entry deserves to be separate. If I don't expand it at some point over the next few months, someone else probably will. It is a distinct area of spiritual theology. Trc | [msg] 08:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi...I suggested that Sanctification should be incorporated into a religious page because when I found it, it was a straight unedited lift of [[]] which as an Italien Roman Catholic I found to be rather wordy and unintelligible! At the moment even with my rewrite, it should not stand alone because Sanctification is an 'abstract' word. It either needs a dictionary definition, or to become the title of a theological debate. Any further explanation of this particular word can only ever be one person's point of view, even if that person is the Pope himself, it would still not be encyclopedic. User:Conte Giacomo
- Hi CG, Oops, I just committed the Wikipedia "sin" of editing without reading the Discussion Page first. But I hope what's there is now ok--in principle, the concept of sanctification would hold for all sorts of religions, not just Christianity, so disagreements among Christians can be glossed over here. I put back the Baptist material as an example, making it clear that it's a quotation. Opus33 04:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I added a notice citing a need for attention & development; this is an important theological subject that deserves a better page. KHM03 22:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sept 10, 2005
I reverted to the last version by Flex...an anonymous user added a bit tothe Protestant section about "the Protestant doctrine of the Rapture". Aside from the fact that there is no such thing (that's a dispensationalist thing that does not represent the majority of Protestantism), it also had very little to do with sanctification. KHM03 22:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of an external link to "Holiness Debate" that an anonIP had been adding to various spiritual/religous articles. The bears no direct relationship to the article; and by the contributions history, this appears to be a case of external link spam. — ERcheck (talk) @ 04:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The reference to sanctification and the Holiness movement seems slightly too brief to me. The long term influence of the Holiness movement has proven significant, and its views on sanctification significantly influenced some of the theology within the Pentecostal movement. Perhaps some passing reference could be made of these things.--Niceguy2all 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Holiness Wesleyans consider entire sanctification to be glorification. I used to be one, and I've always heard it taught that glorification was only in heaven (hence the phrase "gone to Glory" for someone who died). 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Roman Catholic Section
The RC section drifts away from NPOV, IMHO. This article is a mess. The section for RC needs to be tightened up and shortened as does the Methodist section. Reverend Mommy 23:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb
- I agree. Anyone out there want to take a stab at it? I'm not Catholic and don't think I'd do a good job. See if you can get it about to the size of Eastern Orthodoxy. If no one does this in the next few months, I much just come in and remove the last %80 of it or something.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I came in and did what I threatened to do last February. If any Catholics are unhappy, please replace what is there is some original writing instead of copy and paste from the Catholic Encyclopedia. In addition, I deleted the Protestant section, because it did not accurately represent every single Protestant denomination listed. If any Protestants are unhappy with that, feel free to write your own, sourced overview. A concise summary of Protestant similarities and differences on Sanctification would be useful. Perhaps even a table could be made, as was done for the Justification (theology) article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
POV in lead
The last sentence of the lead is a bit POV.
- "What is often missed, or overlooked, is the relational aspect that is associated with the word sancification. Only God is truly holy. Everything else, whether it is things or people, is holy only because of its relationship to God."
Some believe that sanctification is the process whereby thru the grace of God man becomes holy. Is this nitpicking? I don't think so. I don't want to start an edit war, so I wanted to discuss this first. 74s181 20:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Spam protection filter
This link was flagged, and if it remains, the article cannot be edited. Any suggestions on the best way to correct this without losing the link altogether?
"Living the Message of 1 Corinthians 7:12"
Would it be OK to remove it or find a replacement?
I have submitted it for removal from the spam list. WikiMasterCreator 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing. The title should be changed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I added the original research tag and citations needed tag to the top of the article to indicate a few things need a bit of work here. There are a lot of things said in the article that I know to be factually untrue (a couple of which I repaired), as well as some things that may be true but are not sourced. This is an important subject, especially in Christian theology. I hope someone can clean this article up a bit to make it into what it should be. There is a book called Five Views on Sanctification that discusses the different Protestant Christian views on the subject that is quite good. Also, I think maybe there should be a separate section for "other religion's views of sanctification" and Christian sanctification, because there seem to be big differences. Otherwise, this article is off to a good start, just needs a bunch of cleanup. I hope I can help out a bit. Kristamaranatha (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Section
The following entry is incorrect: "Most of us experience some measure of what the scriptures call “the furnace of affliction” (Isa. 48:10; 1 Ne. 20:10)."
The scriptural reference 1 Ne.20:10 should be changed to 1 Nephi 20:10 in the Book of Mormon to avoid confusion. Nehemiah is often abbreviated as "Ne or Neh", but the books 1 & 2 Nephi in the Book of Mormon should be spelled out Nephi. The current reference 1 Ne. 20:10 hyperlinks to Nehemiah in the Old Testament. 1 Nephi 20:10 reads: "For, behold, I have refined thee, I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction."
Hey, I not really sure that LDS qualify as non-trinitarian. I may not be terribly knowledgable about LDS, but I do remember that they do have a concept of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Maybe, I'm wrong. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the non-trinitarian section is superfluous. I suggest getting rid of that heading and merge the LDS section with the rest of the section on christian views. Especially, since LDS is the only entry in the non-trinitarian section. It just doesn't need to be there and doesn't add anything to the article. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'm editing it. I am removing the Non-Trinitarian heading. It is superfluous and irrelevent to the subject of sanctification. Even if LDS are technically non-trinitarian, the term does nothing to make the article clearer. LDS should now be under the heading of Christian views. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Should this article be merged with Sacred? Erudecorp ? * 16:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I do not think so. Sanctification is a technical term in theology referring to the process of making something holy, as opposed to something that already is sacred or holy. I am not a theologian (my job is to teach psychology) but I am sure that textbooks of systematic theology are likely to have an article on sanctification. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the External Links section. The list was growing and consisted mainly of spam/POV pushing. If the contect of the links is relevant to the article, use it as a secondary source and reference it. See Wikipedia:External links for the guidelines/policy on their use. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The challenge I have with this section is the reference to works. While Justification is unconditional and without works, The level and direction of ones sanctification is directly related to our choice, as christians to keep our eyes on God and not listen to the sin-nature in us. While this is not works like 'feeding the poor', it does require direct effort on our part to lead our hearts and not be led by our hearts. So to reference sanctification as holly from the spirit, which it is, but that as christians, were are being sanctified all the time just cause we are justified, is not correct. A christian bound by self condemation and following the law out of sin nature is not being blessed by the spirit and not being sanctified, or at least not by much.
- Speaking as a Calvinist, I actually agree that Sanctification is an automatic process. If you are truly saved, then Sanctification will begin to occur as a natural result. When the Holy Spirit is in you, it can't not. To claim otherwise is to say that human choice can thwart God's sovereignty, which we cannot do. TBH, I'd really like to change the Calvinist section all together, at the very least to make it more clear. Justification refers to the process by which a Christian is made right with God and is instantaneous. Sanctification is the process by which a Christian becomes more holy and like God and does not occur all at once. While the article does seem to say that right now, it does so in a rather roundabout way, I think. And it'd be nice to have more solidly Calvinist citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KelinciHutan (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
What is up with all the non-substantive hyperlinking in an otherwise excellent article?! A hyperlink should indicate that there is a useful extension of the idea at hand or an important explanation. Useful hyperlinks in this article included "Christianity", "Richard Hooker", and "entire sanctification". However, hyperlinking to every common word that just happens to have a wikipedia article on it is simply distracting. If this article was in print, would you ever footnote words like "temple", "human", and "gift" just to define them?! It's not just this article either. It's like a group is playing a childish game to see how many self-referencing wikipedia links they can put in every article. To be blunt, it makes wikipedia look dumb. MrYdobon (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)