Talk:Christian soteriology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Construction

I think that this page is too philosophical in it's construction (covering Epicureanism and Stoicism), whereas soteriology seems to be more of a specifically theological area of understanding. --Tom Morris 13:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This is a biased article. The author of this article mistakenly categorized Christianity as Contemporary Christianity or Decision-Theology Christianity or Basic Christianity or Reformed Protestant Christianity. It does not take into account the views of Orthodox Christians, such as Roman Catholics. Y22y 15:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I edited the page to include Catholicism and remove that anti-Christain NPOV bias that permeated the Christian section.--Epiphyllumlover 03:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism

The section included a great deal of rant about the relationship of Buddhism to Christinaity. I have copied it over to this talk page and removed it from the article. steven (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraphs.

"The following paragraph represents one individual's personal belief and proposes an argument that is inconsistent with this section. I would suggest the submitter and readers consider that it does not meet the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View (NPOV) standard:

A previous editor has mentioned that this is very different from the Christian concept of salvation. However, this difference disappears if the Christian concepts of sin or transgression are seen to be culturally constructed (i.e., a social construction) within a relative or "conventional" framework of belief, and the guilt that is produced from sin is seen as a state of suffering of an afflicted mind. From the Buddhist perspective "salvation" can be accomplished by alleviating the afflicted state of the guilty mind that is experienced by a transgressor. Christ's offering of salvation as an atonement of sin by blood sacrifice can be seen as an offering to reduce afflicted mental states. Thus the Christian salvation can be seen to be very similar to the Buddhist salvation in its effect if not in its method of delivery. The apparent distinction, that there is an absence of blood sacrifice in Buddhist salvation and its presence in Christian salvation, is more an artifact of the two teachers' cultural/historical contexts than it is a reflection of any soteriological truth. Buddhism is rooted in working toward your salvation, when in Christianity, Jesus did the work for us through the atoning sacrifice of his blood shed on the cross."steven (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahayana buddhism

The section on Buddhism, in particular Mahayana, is miserably ill-informed. I don't have time to do a good job right now (I'll add it to my to-do list) but while one might argue that, say Japanese Shin Buddhism is in some sense "savior-based", in fact Shinran Daishonin isn't a "saint", Amitabha isn't a "God", and nirvana is not a "god like" state. -- 67.176.58.152 00:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the whole contents of the Buddhist section be replaced with a link to the main article on Buddhism for the time being. The current content is mostly wrong, even by any reasonable wide interpretation. It does not meet wikipedia conventions, and it has no scholarly merit. --77.185.96.165 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BIG Praise!

This article is very good! It's short, it informs in a concise and pretty unambiguous way. It is a pleasure to read it! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 11:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the wikipedia article on soteriology and had a few questions.

First, why, for Christianity, is the focus on modern theories only? It would be great to have more information on theories of salvation as they have developed over time: e.g., perspectives of Church Fathers (for instance, Origen of Alexandria), perspectives of gnostic Christian communities, etc. Jaroslav Pelikan's work on the history of doctrine might be a good basis for beginning.

Second, the section on Judaism was too brief and therefore misleading (e.g., it was missing any information on the kabbalistic tradition). Again, like Christianity, it appears to assume a static view of the religion.

Third, I assume that the above questions hold for the other religions as well (though, I know much less about other religions). That is, the view of the religion is static rather than dynamic. It would be very helpful to see variation not only on a "horizontal" plane (that is, variations in beliefs at the current time), as well as an historically "verticle" plane (i.e., the development of the different perspectives or sub-traditions over time).

I am new to the discussion function of wikipedia, so I don't quite understand how to post questions and comments. So, perhaps this message does not appear in the appropriate forum. Any help on this would be appreciated. Scott.parrott 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Scott.parrott 17:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Scott

[edit] Sections wrong

The tiny section on "Hellenic philosophy" doesn't add much to the discussion on soteriology-salvation. The section on Confucianism is almost completely wrong. They don't really have a soteriology. They stress self-culivation for its own sake. There is nothing to be saved from, and no Heaven to seek. Chinese ancestor worship has nothing to do with salvation. "Karma" is not a Confucian concept (or Chinese for that matter). I'm removing the section. Bao Pu (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The first sentence

The initial sentence of this article is the following: "Soteriology is the branch of Christian theology that deals with salvation." If this is the correct definition of soteriology (which I contend it is not, as it's too limited), then why does the article then go on to talk about Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, among others? Soteriology is not a uniquely Christian concept, so I'm going to remove the word "Christian." Lori belle (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow OK somebody did what i just did before...? ʄ!•¿talk? 10:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Taoism I think that a subheading of Taoism would be an excellent addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.222.201.11 (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] revision of definition does not match reference given

Here is a quote from the reference given: "In Christian systematic theology it is used to refer to the study of the biblical doctrine of salvation.'--Editor2020 (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes with "Christian" being an adjective. Before that when discussing the words' etymology it makes fairly clear that soteriology is can be used in a broader theological sense, as it makes no claims that it's solely a Christian term. Lets not waste any more time on this OK? ʄ!•¿talk? 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the source. Soteriology, according to the source, is a term specific to Christianity. "The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ" is pretty clear. I am going to remove the references to other religions and see if any of it needs to be combined into other articles. I am not who I appear to be (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that the respective articles for each religion need the information in the deleted sections, as it seems to be there already. I've just removed them. I am not who I appear to be (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Your just reading what you want to read. A quick search on google showed studies of soteriology in plenty of other religions[1], the point is it is not an exclusively Christian term. However seeing as the other religions sections were unreferenced they can be re-added at a later date. ʄ!•¿talk? 04:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here are the definitions from the reference given.

so·te·ri·ol·o·gy –noun Theology. the doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ. [Origin: 1760–70; < Gk sōtérí(a) salvation, deliverance (sōtér- (s. of sōtr) deliverer + -ia -y3) + -o- + -logy]

—Related forms so·te·re·o·log·ic adjective Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This so·te·ri·ol·o·gy n. The theological doctrine of salvation as effected by Jesus.

[Greek sōtērion, deliverance (from sōtēr, savior, from saos, sōs, safe; see teuə- in Indo-European roots) + -logy.]

so·te'ri·o·log'ic (-ə-lŏj'ĭk), so·te'ri·o·log'i·cal (-ĭ-kəl) adj. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. WordNet soteriology

noun the branch of Christian theology that deals with salvation as the effect of a divine agency

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

Soteriology So*te`ri*ol"o*gy\, n. [Gr. ? safety (from ? saving, ? a savoir, ? to save) + -logy.]

1. A discourse on health, or the science of promoting and preserving health.

2. (Theol.) The doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

"the study of salvation is called soteriology, from the Greek soteria meaning "salvation". Salvation, virtually synonymous with the overall concept of redemption, includes a past, present, and future sense." http://www.theopedia.com/Soteriology

Your just using most likely out of date references(that can't be verified I might add) that are contradicted by other sources. Wikipedia should err towards a more inclusive definition, regardless of what a minority of sources claim. Being made in the western world its understandable that a regular dictionary entry might assume a Christian standpoint, but on wikipedia thats not going to cut it. ʄ!•¿talk? 08:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I provided ALL of the definitions from the website listed as a reference in the article, which I just copy and pasted from the site, and which you could easily verify by clicking on the reference link provided and going to the site.
My sources are Random House Unabridged Dictionary, American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language and Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
Your "source" is Theopedia, a WIKI which calls itself "an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity." Wikis are not considered reliable sources.--Editor2020 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider dictionary.com reliable. Heres yet another occurrence of this term being used in the context of another religion[2](being used as the adjective "soteriological"). I'm aware of WP:NPA, but at this point I really have to ask the question, are you being belligerent or are you just not that smart? Do you think Buddhists worship Jesus? Just because your a Christian it doesn't give you the right to try and misguidedly annex theological terms as an extension of your own beliefs. ʄ!•¿talk? 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you stop assuming bad faith here? We have been trying to present evidence based only on sources, so you have no reason to assume we are trying to "annex theological terms". Please assume good faith on the part of others. I am not who I appear to be (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's basically impossible to assume good faith when someone is going to insist on WP:edit warring to push their POV. By saying it's a Christian term, which it clearly isn't, you are claiming that the definition of religion = worshiping Jesus. ʄ!•¿talk? 07:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
My 2 cents. Definition from the Webster´s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged ISBN 3829052928: "a branch of theology that deals with salvation as the effect of divine agency". Jesus is not cited at all.Randroide (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, most modern dictionaries don't call it a Christian term or mention Jesus, and the very fact that the word is used extensively in not Christian contexts proves that is a general theological term. In the cases where it is linked to Jesus—a dictionary may have been published recently, but many of the entries can be complied from much older versions. ʄ!•¿talk? 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO the lead should be like this... Soteriology is the branch of theology that deals with salvation. "Christian soteriology" should be a section of Soteriology. If the section literally "eats" the whole article (maybe the term is used mainly by Christians), "Soteriology" could be reduced to a sum of definition plus glorified disambiguation page, with Christian soteriology as the "big article". Randroide (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of the separate Christian soteriology article solution. However seeing as this article is just a stub anyway, and one editor is editing with bias extensively to insist point-blank that it only has to do with Christianity, I'm concerned about being able to do this. ʄ!•¿talk? 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I did it

Moved "Soteriology" to "Christian Soteriology". Please check if I did a good job. Randroide (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job, by the way. ʄ!•¿talk? 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change in direction to other article, now that this is 'christian soteriology.

This line is from the intro--"For similar concepts in other religions, see Salvation." Shouldn't it now read "see Soteriology"?

Or should this be left as is, and 'soteriology' be redirected to 'salvation'?--Editor2020 (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

seeing as the salvation article has more material, as well as being a more recognisable term, just stick with that. ʄ!•¿talk? 11:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)