Fort Towson

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Theology / Catholicism / Reformed Christianity / Arminianism / Latter Day Saints / Evangelical Top‑importance 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Arminianism (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as Top-importance).

@Editor2010: what's the difference between Unlimited atonement and Universal reconciliation? Isn't it the same topic? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was this for me? Editor2020 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor2010: yes; typo... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this section does little to give due to the source material for Judaic sources. The most recent editor has simplified the idea to a somewhat 'Christian friendly' set of sources (only two) and interpreted them through the lens of Christendom instead of Judaism. That is not to say all the material presented is false or inaccurate but simply incomplete and limited.

Lmjarrell1972 (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph [of the lead] as currently written violates WP:NPOV by attempting to date the various atonement theories and then assign them to different denominations, implying that certain denominations have adopted innovations over the years while others hold fast to the original understanding. I am fairly certain that every Christian denomination listed would agree with Saints Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons that Jesus is the new Adam who by His union with human nature came to lead humankind to eternal life. Likewise, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox would agree with Saint Cyril of Alexandria that Jesus offered Himself as a pleasing sacrifice to the Father, and I'm sure every denomination agrees that Jesus came to morally influence us for the better.

Moreover, this paragraph conflates the timing during which a theory is formally postulated as such rather than the time at which its underlying elements were set forth. Every denomination listed would argue that their preferred theory is set forth in the New Testament itself. As noted in Moral influence theory of atonement, at least some scholars are of the opinion that no formal theory of the atonement was postulated until Anselm.

As currently written, this paragraph makes contentious claims regarding both the date and denominational acceptance of the various theories. If they are going to be listed in the introduction, it needs to be done in a neutral manner.

--PluniaZ (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The various theories are indeed listed as in the order in which they were formulated; see Ben Pugh (2015), Atonement Theories: A Way through the Maze, but also Gustaf Aulén's Christus Victor. Pretty standard way of listing these theories. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pugh is the one who says that Anselm was the first person to formulate a comprehensive doctrine of the atonement, so if we are going to list them chronologically, we should start with the satisfaction theory, which Pugh shows is present in Patristic writings too.

You also completely ignored my point that the denominational attribution of the various atonement theories is misleading and inaccurate. The Catholic Church, for example, holds to the Recapitulation Theory, the Ransom Theory, the Satisfaction Theory and the Moral Influence Theory, but the article portrays the Catholic Church as holding to only the satisfaction theory. Likewise, Christus Victor was proposed by a Lutheran and widely accepted across Christian denominations in the 20th Century, but you have described it as a Patristic theory held only by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The denominational references need to come out, and I think the dating should be removed, since all the theories purport to describe the earliest beliefs of Christianity. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can improve this article, go ahead, using WP:RS; but that there is a chronology is obvious. Pugh starts with the ransom-theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GayOrdinaryChristian: please explain why you think this article needs more citations diff is biased diff diff. And please be aware that the WP:LEAD summarizes the article; editorializing the lead without reflecting the article is the best way to go forward. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Jesus died for our sins has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 25 § Jesus died for our sins until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]