This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sanctification in Christianity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page 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. |
I think it is important that the precise meaning of the word “holy” is made clear in this article. If “holy” is to be understood as oxford dic. Meaning 1.3, (spiritual or religious excellence) then the sections on protestantismen and methodists make some sense, if the meaning of “holy” is merrian websters meaning 2 (divine) then the entire article is non nicean. The corresponding word in germanic lanquages (of some interest here since many reformers spoke germanic lanq.) Is heilig/hellig etc. These words have the primary meaning of something “divine”. And most certainly neither luther nor wesley thought that man somehow become “divine”.
I think that for many people not accustomed to the different meanings of the english word “holy”, much of the article is very confusing and can easely be misunderstood.
62.44.134.132 (
talk) 07:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
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 [[ [1]]] 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
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)
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). 207.43.79.22 ( talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
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
The last sentence of the lead is a bit POV.
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)
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)
shouldn't this aricle be titled "sanctification"? That would make more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.216.26 ( talk) 20:44, 8 January 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 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."
Nehemiah in the Old Testament has only 13 chapters, and is normally abbreviated Neh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenskapoyk ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
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. 72.204.20.116 ( talk) 22:10, 21 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.
Your thoughts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.113.113 ( talk) 21:43, 7 August 2010 (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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sanctification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
These topics WP:OVERLAP, are WP:REDUNDANT, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. In the opening of the consecration article it states "A synonym for consecration is sanctification; its antonym is desecration." Neither article substantially addresses how the two ideas are different. While both articles are long the majority of both is comprised of breakdowns of individual Christian group's approaches to their theology. The sanctification article states "The concept of sanctification is widespread among religions," which suggests that Christian focus is wp:undue. Darker Dreams ( talk) 00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
This paragraph for introducing sanctification does not seem like a general overview of the Christian perspective, nor does it have formal tone. In tone it would be appropriate in a sermon than on a Wikipedia page
Sanctification means that self(attitudes, desires, self-will, etc.) is crucified and that you are no longer carnal(in you thoughts, actions, or mind). So, you get filled with the Holy Ghost. This is also known as the second work of grace. In sanctification it is higher level of purging God does because you’re no longer carnal. Also, God will still show you things about yourself, but it should never be carnal.
Levalmaster (
talk) 21:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)