414
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: + +
→Article changed for the actual Biblical account
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?--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 16:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
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?--[[User:Mattk|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. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 22:41, 30 November 2007 (EST)