No lie in the offer of salvation

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 02:15 PM 7/21/99 -0400, Nancy Todd wrote:

><snip>

>>Matthew Bell

>>In your typical fashion you do exaggerate the difference[sic]that exist

>within

>>orthodox Christianity with regard to how to be saved. 

>

>

>NANCY

>Matt has asserted several times on this list that the doctrinal differences

>among xtian denominations are not of any great importance, but I think that

>disagreements on how one goes about gaining salvation are of great

>importance. If a xtian is not baptized because his denomination teaches

>that baptism is not required for salvation, but it turns out that baptism

>is required for salvation, as some denominations teach and as the bible

>itself teaches, then that unbaptized xtian is just shit out of luck come

>judgment day. The fact that xtian denominations cannot agree on something

>as basic and important as the road to salvation is very telling. And the

>fact that Matt Bell dismisses this fact with a mere wave of a hand is also

>very telling.

>

>MATT BELL

>That aside, let me

>>repeat my post was not asserting such as true but demonstrating that from

>>the Christian perspective no lie is being told when they ask those to take

>>up the free offer of salvation given through Jesus Christ. Monson claimed

>>that in doing so the Christian was lying because rejection of the gift mean

>>severe consequences i.e. eternal damnation. I was pointing out that such is

>>a fallacious representation of Christianity because the rejection in

>>Christian theology does but leave you where you were before, i.e

>>hell-bound. 

>

>NANCY

>Well, it all depends on the xtian theology, doesn't it, Matt. 

>

>In Matt's flavor of xtianity, everyone is condemned until he walks the road

>to salvation. Matt's flavor of xtianity condemns everyone who doesn't

>follow whatever path one must follow to gain salvation, even those who have

>never received Jesus's offer. Matt has never been able to describe for us

>that path (after claiming the path to salvation was crystal clear, he had

>to back off that claim and admit that the path isn't so clear after all)

>and he doesn't think it is important that xtians cannot agree on what path

>leads to salvation, although not following this unknown path to salvation

>results in condemnation to hell. 

>

>RC doctrine allows for those who never heard of Jesus's offer to gain a

>reprieve from eternal damnation. Arguments based upon the same scripture

>verses that are used to argue that only those who believe in Jesus can be

>saved are also used to support the position that those who are ignorant of

>Jesus can also be saved. 

>

>Matt will just wave his hand and say that these doctrinal differences are

>unimportant. After all, RCs (or any denomination that disagrees with Matt)

>aren't REAL CHRISTIANS (tm).

>

>St. Nancy O'Tod, patron saint of grammar

>todds@pa.net



BRUCE:

Thank you Nancy, for pointing out the obvious to our friend Matthew.  He
doesn't to seem to grasp the implications of there being thousands of
different and distinct sects of Xtianity.  Some of these require knowledge
of Christ (else you're saved by default) while others condemn you even if
you've never be "informed" of Xtianity.  Some sects of Xtianity actually
condemn other sects as well.  What a great system!  The scriptures are so
"crystal clear" that no one can decide what contradicting verses they should
go by, so they just choose some favorites to live by and make a new
variation on the theme.

Yours in Truth,

Bruce

• Previous message: No lie in the offer of salvation
• Next message: No lie in the offer of salvation
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]