44
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 38:
Line 38: + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
: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. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:45, 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. [[User:Karajou|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. It is a 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?