From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Just so everyone knows, I did the major change on this entery today for these reasons:

- it seemed to filled with jargon. It made sense to me, someone who was raised in conservative protestant Christianity, but would a Hindu in New Delhi have understood what was written? I don't think so. I tried to use language that would be familiar to any English speaker with a reasonable education.

- the article I changed only explained one view of salvation. I tried to show that there are different views of salvation arising out of the NT and to give a brief description of a very popular protestant understanding of salvation, the Calvinist view.

I think several more things are necessary for the article on salvation:

1. an expansion/fleshing out of Calvinist thought, including a discussion of arius and the calvinist response. (because this is one of two major theories in American protestantism) 2. a subsection on Wessleyan soteriology (because this is the other major thoery in American Protestantism) 3. a subsection on original sin that discusses the impact of St. Augustine's innovation of A.D. 395 4. a subsection on St.Alselm of Canterbury's theory and the development of western soteriology since then. 5. a section dealing with various theories of salvation with subsections dealing with the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory, the mercantiist theory, the Christos Victor theory, etc. 6. a section dealing with soteriology of Roman Catholicism (because it is the largest church)(this might fit in under thediscussions of St. Augustine and St. Anselm) 7. a section dealing with the soteriology of the Orthodox Church (because it is the second largest church)

Article changed for the actual Biblical account

Too many, differing accounts for salvation tended to water-down the article and confuse the reader; further, and more serious, God only had ONE way for salvation and eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ as specified in the Bible. There is no other way. Differing accounts that were here previously, such as the Calvinist, can be put into separate articles with entries as to why they differ from the straight, Biblical account. Karajou 01:10, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I think you underestimate the inter-denominational bickering. Every denomination seems to say there is one way to salvation, true - but they all claim its a different way.
  • Catholic doctrine says there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Period. For church members, its just a matter of dieing without unconfessed sin.
  • Most Evangalical churches go for the personal approach - where one need only accept Christ. Church membership is encouraged, but not required.
  • A very large number of more casual christians believe that God acts as a judge of who is 'good' and 'bad' - not even careing if someone is a Christian or not. If they are kind, generous and polite they go to heaven, while the violent and selfish go to hell.
  • The Jehova's Witnesses, very much on the fringes of Christianity, believe salvation is earned by works in life. Specificly, knocking on doors.
  • Then you have the little semi-cults and their strange selection of beliefs.

- Suricou

So what are you claiming? Interdenominational bickering nullifies God's Word? Let's draw the line first off, in Western Christianity, between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.
  • Roman Catholicism stresses God's Word and teaching is kept alive and passed on via a priesthood, or curia, i.e. in persons, and Church tradition, with the head of the Roman Church being the final arbiter or interpreter of Scripture.
  • Protestantism relies on Scritpture itself as God's Word and teaching, unfiltered by mortal men.
  • Various subdenominations which have sprung from Protestant traditions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, et al can be reviewed within the Canon of Scriprture.
Where is the controversy? RobS 13:39, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I think the article as written as (e.g. Biblical Account) is a really good statement of the modern Evangelical Protestant development of St. Anselm of Canterbury's 11th century Satisfaction theory. (See his work Cur Deus Homo?) I think it might be good to retitle this from the Biblical Account to Modern Evangeilcal Satisfaction Theory. Also, I'd like to include (1) something on the much older Christus Victor theory of salvation, and (2) something on the role of the Sacraments in salvation. Does anyone see any problems with doing this?--Mattk 13:36, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

There will be NO changes to this article. It is the Biblical account of salvation; it's not some modern theory; it's not some older Christus Victor theory; it's not anyone else's theory for that matter. Karajou 13:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Well, I don't quite know what to say about that. I don't want to get into a fruitless debate with an Admin (especiallly one who served us in the Naval profesion) but I would like to make the following observations:

1 Many people who love the Scriptures and the Lord who is revealed in them have a different understanding of them than does Karajou. 2 The history of theology does show the development of the Protestant version of the Satisfaction Theory from Anselm, through Zwingli, through the Puritans and into modern American-style Protestantism. The impetus behind the development of the theory is laudible, but there is no denying that it is a comparitively recent interpretation of Scripture. 3 Many prominent American conservatives such as the Justice Salcia, Paul Weyrich, and Bill Buckley hold different views of Salvation from the one to which Karajou is limiting the article. 4 I want conservapedia to be a success. I would like for it to be a place where serious scholars can find information on every topic under Heaven, not a ghetto for echo-chamber seekers afraid of history, tradition, and reason.

Now having said that, I have a few questions: Would it be acceptable to Karajou to have links in the Salvation article that lead to articles dealing with the other soteriological theories? Would Karajou mind changing the "the" to an "a" because all of the major theories of how Salvation works are Biblical, they just rely on different passages of Scripture? Since the conservative movement is so broad, is it right for this encyclepedia to limit the definition of Salvation to one not held by most conservative Christians?--Mattk 16:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

This is the Biblical promise of salvation, not just some "belief". The fact that it stands apart from other versions of salvation is good enough to have the whole article on it. ScorpionVote for Pedro 22:41, 30 November 2007 (EST)
And I would just like to thank the writer of this article from the bottom of my heart...I was tormented by fear of hell, fear of eternal damnation before I came and read this. Now, after having recieved Jesus as my Lord and Savior, I feel as if I've already "entered the gates of Paradise" (quoted from [[Martin Luther")! What a wonderful Savior! I would encourage those who believe they can get eternal life by works to reconsider. Jesus died for you, and when He died He took our sins upon Himself, and He freed us from the power of sin and from the punishment of hell! There is nothing else that needs to be done. Praise the Lord! ScorpionVote for Pedro 22:54, 30 November 2007 (EST)
The article is cited as needing more citations, but it is locked. More material here:
Wonderful testimony Pedro! Thank God for "so great a salvation" (Heb. 2:3) by the "great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13) at so great a cost (who "spared not His own dear Son" (Rm. 8:32) to meet so great a need for so great a multitude of sinners, for so great an eternity! But i hope i can render more unto the Lord "according to the benefit thereof" (cf. 2Chrn. 32:35) as i feel i have done so little.Daniel1212 22:47, 11 April 2009 (EDT)