1prophet
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 5,313
- 534
- 126
There was a whole lot of crap left out of the Bible. Read the Gospel of Thomas, for example.
IIRC, you can blame St. Jerome for leaving it out.
Wow, that boy gets around.
Any idea what's happened to him since 2002? A large number of reports up till then, and then nothing. It just says they've been halted.
Though this claim would throw me off. "Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ are not one and the same person. This is one of the most difficult claims for many Christians to accept in connection with Maitreya, the World Teacher, and it therefore needs some further explanation." I'm seeing little red flags go up when I read that, and the explanation is rather lacking.
I don't have much of a problem understanding or explaining the *miracles* he has performed, but him denying that Jesus is the Christ, that I have a serious problem with.
1prophet
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 5,313
- 534
- 126
I agree with you and what bothers me is not just the things you stated but how he is able to do this:
I don't know if you know anything about languages but when you speak in another language that is not native to you the people in that part of the world can tell even if you don't think you have an accent. Now imagine someone who is able to do that with no accent and get the cultural nuances right no matter what part of the world he speaks to.:Q
Just goes to show how great Satan powers are. He can and will exercise all of them in his attempts to deceive God's followers. However, the Lord has promised that we can and will have the ability to tell his true prophets from the false ones. Satan is able to do great things, but he simply can't maintain them. They are but illusions of the real power of God, and are therefore only temporary.
But I agree, it will be a very hard thing for people to know and understand the true power of God, but I believe it will be necessary.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" claims that men can become gods and differs in opinion on some of the things stated in the Bible. Also, they seek to make the book of Mormon equal to the Bible, which it is not, and it contradicts the Bible. Also, the last part of Revelation 22 states that:
"if anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)
From that, it is clear that the book of Revelation was meant to be the last book of the Bible (the Word of God) and that you cannot add to it. I've read sections of the book of Mormon, from other apocryphal books, and from the Qu'ran, and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit I can tell that they are not the Word of God, though it's fairly obvious they were meant to imitate it and to deceive those without discernment. As long as Mormons claim the book of Mormon is the Word of God (a false doctrine), they cannot be considered true Christians. Religions look to how man can become like God or how man can save himself, while Christianity looks at how God has had mercy on man and has provided the way to salvation. There is nothing man can do to earn salvation, but it is a gift from God, who gave His only son as sacrafice in order to save us.
And yes, I know that the true meaning of prophecy is that which is revealed by God, and a prophet is essentially the same as a preacher (one who speaks the word of God to the people). I was using the more common (worldly) definition of prophecy, which is the telling of the future (such as in the book of Daniel and Isaiah). My fault; I should have been clearer what I meant (I wrongly assumed everyone here didn't go by the traditional definition).
As for the Antichrist, I myself don't know a lot on that topic (mainly because I don't plan on being here when he comes to power), but refer you to
What the World is Coming to, by Chuck Smith. That link is a free pdf; pg 39 is where he starts to talk about the Antichrist. I would highly recommend reading the rest of that book as well, especially if you plan on studying the book of Revelation.
Nice sight, horrible attempt, but nice try. What they claim as contradiction are so easily explained. What's even funnier is when you click the link bringing you to the online resources with a list of some of our "beliefs". Wow, we're really a jacked-up group of people, aren't we? I could understand why people thought we were weird if we actually believed/did half the things listed there.
I don't recall the Book of Revelations being the last Book written. As a matter of fact, the Gospel of John was written AFTER the Book of Revelations. Does that therefore mean that the Gospel of John is to be omitted and is not valid? Also, most of the Book of Mormon was written prior to this event anyway, so even if what you are saying is true, the majority of the Book of Mormon is still valid.
In the mean time, you might want to consider that what John was referring to was his revelation, not the Bible. His revelation of the Last days, as well as a few pre-earth events, are not to be added upon, and you can see that in 1 Nephi 13-14, which even confirms that.
Actually, the Book of Mormon was meant to confirm the Bible, not replace or imitate it. All you have to do is read the Title page to know that.
As for knowing the Book of Mormon to be false, well, I know it to be true, and I've received the witness of the Holy Spirit to that effect. Since you did not receive a similar experience, I wonder what your purposes behind reading it were. I would be interested to know, because I know that God would not tell one of us one thing and the other something else.
Hmm, let's use a quote from the page you linked us to.
2 Nephi 25:19 "For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh... his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. ... (v.23) For we labor... to persuade... our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
Also, why did they cut out portions?? It adds so much to it when you leave them in. Such a great chapter in the Book of Mormon.
Seems pretty obvious to me that we believe in grace. As far as being considered a "true Christian", I don't care. I'm not really interested in how the world views me, nor do I look to obtain worldly titles. Call me a Christian, call me a cult member, makes no difference to me.
No problem. Just wanted to clarify because I know a lot of people confuse the two. Didn't mean it to be insulting to you knowledge.
Actually, I've spent a great deal of time studing the Book of Revelations already. As for the link, I'm always willing to read peoples understandings or interpretations and I'll be happy to let you know what I think whenever I get the chance.
Well, can you explain some of the contradictions, then? And where do you get the information that the book of John was written after Revelation? I'm sure if you hold the preterist view, that it might seem so, but nowhere have I seen or heard of any proof from the Bible. There are several other issues that I have problems with, which are addressed by CRI in this article, this one, and this one. And does the book of Mormon indeed say that God has a physical body? I know that Jesus had a physical body, and that he appeared several times before His birth, but the Bible is clear that the Father is spirit. And why does the book of restateMormon many things from the Bible? Some books of the Bible quote from others books within the Bible, but only when to show how prophecy was fulfilled or to specifically address the sins or questions of the people (like when the Pharisees questioned Jesus); the Book of Mormon seems to do a lot of quoting without citing the reasoning, nor is it clear from the text. Also, if the book of Mormon is just "confirming" the Bible, why isn't it treated that way by Mormons? Why is it given special preference over other documents that confirm the Bible? Does it add anything new that Christians do not already know or should know from the Bible?
Also, can you describe your salvation experience and baptism? Not questioning your salvation, but curious to how and if latter day saints differ. And jsut so you know, I'm not one for titles either, but I do identify with Christ as my Lord and Saviour.
Also, can you describe your salvation experience and baptism? Not questioning your salvation, but curious to how and if latter day saints differ. And jsut so you know, I'm not one for titles either, but I do identify with Christ as my Lord and Saviour.
1. The Bible plainly states that the gospel, with its inclusion of Gentiles, was not fully revealed until after Christ's death.
I'm guessing they are referring to a contradiction from this verse, as the others seem irrelevant.
2 Nephi 26:12 "And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus in the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;"
If you'll read the verses previous to this one, you'll notice that these events are to take place AFTER the coming of Christ and his death, which is in complete harmony with the above point.
2. During Jesus' ministry He spoke of His church as something in the future.
The Church of Christ established among the Nephite people was of the same type as that established in the early days of the Israelites after the exodus. Did they not have a church? Was Christ not also a pivotal figure in said church?
Also, Christ told Peter he would build his church, *there in Jerusalem*, upon Peter. He in no way, shape, or form indicates that those were the only people on earth who would have his gospel and his church. As a matter of fact, the Bible is quite specific on the fact that others would also hear his gospel, and be visited by him.
3. The Bible says believers were first called Christians after Paul's ministry in Antioch.
Yes, and once again, you are talking about two different sets of people in two different locations. What this actually proves is that what Christ will does with one set of people, he does with the others as well. That he is the same today, yesterday, and forever. Failing to see a problem with this one.
4. The Holy Ghost was bestowed on the Christians at the time of Pentecost.
Again, where does it say that these people are the only ones who would receive the Holy Spirit? The tribes of Judah and Levi, who were the two that returned to Israel, were in a constant state of wickedness at the time. Why would the Lord bless them with the Holy Spirit at that time of wickedness?
This also brings up an interesting point. The promises made to Abraham and his seed extend to all his seed. So what of the lost 10 tribes? They keep records previous to their captivity in Babylon. Wouldn't it then make sense for them to continue keeping record and continue having prophets if they were worthy? From about 600 bc to the coming of Christ, the Bible is almost exclusively about the Tribes of Judah and Levi. What of the others?
5. In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel.
Yes it does, and where they any of the tribe of Levi in the Book of Mormon? Nope. So where those people to be deprived of the right to participate in the ordinances of the Gospel because of it? Nope. How are you tell God who he can and can't give his priesthood to? If he wants to give it to a member of the tribe of Ephraim, are you going to stop him? It was able to stay within the tribe of Levi in the Bible because that tribe was always present in the Bible.
6. The Old Testament teaches that the first born of the flocks were to be given automatically to the Lord. Sacrifices were to be made from their remaining animals.
This one is just funny because the very verses it quotes from the Bible prove it wrong. Consider this verse:
Gen 4:4
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Wow, his *offering*, not his *tithing*. And the Lord had the nerve to be respectful of it. Wow.
7. The Bible states that all of King Zedekiah's sons were killed.\
Hmm, how many Zedekiah's are in the Bible? I wonder what the odds are that their may have been more than one person during that time with that name. I know I can't think of any other names that were used in the Bible more than once. :roll:
However, even if this is the same Zedekiah, it does not say "all" the sons of Zedekiah, but just "the" sons of Zedekiah, indicating he was referring to the one who were there. Mulek would not have been there, so he would have kill "the" sons of Zedekiah that were still there.
8. The Bible prophesied that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.
Umm, Jerusalem is the name of the Land also, and one of the cities within said land. So Bethlehem would be located in Jerusalem. Matter of fact, check out this portion of the scripture they quote.
Alma 7: 10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin..."
So like I said, easily explained.
The Book of John is estimated to have been written in 90 AD. Link1 Link2
Most scholars place the writing of the Book of Revelations to be closer to 70 AD. I'll let you look that one up, but let me know if you can't find it.
What are the preterist views?
Do I have to do these too?
Actually, the Bible is very clear about him having a body, but no, it is not mention in the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon quotes chapters from Isaiah, which the people had access to prior to leaving Jerusalem. And again, are you in a position to deny the teachings of Christ to anyone, or to say who can and can't have them? Is there some problem with these people having those writings? There are other quotes from the Bible, specifically from when Christ visited the people. Fancy him telling them the same things he told other people.
It is not treated anymore specially that the Bible. Our sunday school classes rotate on a 4 year cyle, old testament, new testament, book of mormon, and doctrine and covenants. Seems pretty equal to me. Matter of fact, the Bible gets two years.
What are these other documents to which you refer?
And yes, it does contain additional insight into Christ and his gospel. Nothing contradictory (see previous answers), only additional understanding.
My salvation experience? Well, I don't recall having received salvation yet. Still living. Kind of have to wait till I'm dead for that.
Baptism. Done by emmursion, by one with the proper authority, just like the Savior's baptism by John.
We do differ in our understanding of salvation. Does salvation come through grace. Absolutely. But does that insure that we keep it? No. That's where our works come in. We have to earn the right to keep it. Salvation is not just something that happens one day and last forever. It is a continual struggle to keep our lives in harmony with God's will. And make no mistake about it, if we fail, we will lose that salvation.
And just like you, I also identify Christ as my Lord and Savior.
Wow, this was freakin long
I am telling you that is not how it is used here, and using it that way is a mistake and contrary to how it was originally used. Belief in God and some literal anti-Christ aside, if you look at what the Early Christians ment historically, this ment something that was not Christ. If you have any dopubt or want the etimological history eplained, go find a a local Greek Orthodox Priest and simply ask him about that word and greek meaning.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
*yawn*
Except the Revelation of Saint John of Patmos was not the last book written in the New Testament, but one of the first. Contrary to what you appear to think, the books of the New Testament are not traditionally arranged according to the chronological order in which they were written. In fact, the Revelation was written before the Gospel of Mark even, which was the first of the 4 Gospels to be written. Do you then, because of Rev 22:18-19, hold all 4 Gospels to be invalid?
And oh yeah, quit misinterpreting Ephesians 2 by leaving out the context of verse 10 like most evangelical Christians do. Calvin was just plain wrong and full of sh!t. That passage was NEVER meant to imply that good works on earth are not a prerequisite for salvation, nor that salvation was pre-destined to a few, but simply that only God can grant salvation (and not one man to another man, i.e. through the Catholic pratice of granting "indulgences," or one man to himself).
You missed the point. 2 Nephi was supposedly written before the birth of Christ, correct? Well, Paul says in Ephesians 3:3-7:
"how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power." (emphasis mine)
but 2 Nephi 25:19 says: "For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh... his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. ... (v.23) For we labor... to persuade... our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
and
2 Nephi 26:12 "And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus in the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;"
God is saying that no one knew the mystery of Christ before He came to earth and preached the gospel, that salvation would come to the Gentiles. And yet Moroni had this foreknowledge? So are you saying that Paul, who whas inspired by the Holy Spirit, is a liar , or that 2 Nephi was written after the birth of Christ (in direct contradiction to the claims of the Church of LDS)? No Mormon has come up with an answer to this contradiction (and it is crystal clear that it is a contradiction, even in context), except to shift the topic (no offense, but I have not seen an adequate response).
I'll address the other contradictions I brought up after you answer that one.
As for the date the book of Revelation was written, it is not definite that it was before 70 AD and in fact there is much debate in the Christian church over this. Those who hold that the book of Revelation was written before 70 AD hold to that belief because of circumstansial evidence within the book, and belive that the book of Revelation was speaking of things, that in our point of view, already happened. I hold to the futurist view that states that what happened in John's vision is of what is to come in our future, and the Christ will return according to his vision. And some people hold to partial-preterist views which combine the two, and some to other non-sensical views like the entire book of Revelation is allegorical. So no, I don't think the book of Revelation was written before the book of John, and I think the content and the context of Revelation (which contrasts well with the first book of the Bible) shows that it is meant to be the last book in the Bible, which was meant to be a cohesive whole, a single book inspired by the Holy Spirit tohugh physically written by the hands of many different prophets. I don't know how you could have spent a great deal of time studying Revelation and miss that.
I don't know where you see that in the Bible, but if you point out where, I'll be happy to look it up. The Bible does say no one has seen the glory of God and lived, which indicates to mean that no, he does not have aphysical body, and he has never appeared on the earth, unlike Jesus.
I think you missed my point. I'm not denying the right of anyone to have access to the Bible, and that is something I would never do. In fact, I greatly believe in the opposite. Please read what I said again.
What additional understanding? Any examples that either don't contradict the teaching of the Bible or teach what is already taught in the Bible?
Now that's where I have to disagree with you big time. The Bible does not teach that salvation can be lost; it is a one-time gift.
Hebrews 9:24-28
" For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another? He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation."
John 10:27-29
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father?s hand."
Salvation is a one-time event, which is why Jesus refers to it as being "born again". Not born again and again and again. Yes, we who have the Spirit of God living in us can walk in the flesh and turn from God; as long as we are living on the earth this is unfortunately so. But God always calls us back, not wanting us to stray from Him. The passages that those who claim salvation can be lost (like Pentecostals) are usually the parables of the wheat and tares, the vine and branch, and salt that loses its flavor. These refer not to loss of salvation, but the "cutting off" of those who do not produce fruit. Who are those who do not produce fruit? Those who are in the Church (speaking of the universal church, here) the Church, but not of it. They don't produce fruit because they are not true Christians. If you have true faith in Jesus, you will produce works (fruit). The Lord also says He will take out of the picture belivers who are living in the flesh so much and for so long that they "sin unto death" (1 John 5:16). This is not God taking salvation away (for what kind of father would He be if he took away a gift?), but Him blotting that person out of the Book of Life (but not out of the Lamb's Book of Life).
I hope to be able to say at the end of my life what Paul says to Timothy in that second letter:
"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing." 2nd Timothy 4:7-8
I hope I haven't offended you (I know too well that "salt" can sting), but I do believe that you have strayed from
the true gospel by putting any faith in the books written by Joeseph Smith, or anything outside of the Bible. I honestly and humbly pray that you and others come to and or get back on the true path, the narrow path of righteousness so that in those last days you also may be able to say "I have fought the good fight".
Good works are not a prerequisite of salvation, or that would mean that salvation isn't a gift of God, and is dependent on what we do. Faith is the only thing required to be saved. What verse 10 is saying that if you have faith in Jesus, you will accept His gift of salvation. If you do that, the Holy Spirit will come into your life, and the visible result of your faith is the works, or fruits, that you produce.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ?s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another." -Galatians 5:22-26
Those who have faith in God also love Him, and obey His commandments, including the one to go out into the nations and preach the gospel.
You're probably right, I did miss the point. Why? Because there wasn't one, just like there is not one here. Paul said "the mystery". Now you seem to be supposing that the "mystery" to which he is referring is the converting of the Gentiles. Now there are two problems with your interpretation. 1.) He said "other ages" not "all other ages", meaning that at times this knowledge was not made known, but at other times it may have been, and secondly, tell me the exact time period that makes an "age", 2) The mystery involves the Gentiles being converted, not the fact that they will be converted. The mystery of Christ was made known to them, which allowed them to administer to the Gentiles. The mystery is what allowed them to administer, not the actual administration. Now what your real question should be is "what is that mystery". I highly recommend you explore that, because it is an incredible bit of knowledge to gain.
No Mormon has come up with an answer because there is no contradiction. We need provide no answer, but I have given you all the answer you need, so I'm sure we can consider this matter closed.
I'm sure you will.
Pretty easy. You're guessing. You have no evidence, nor will you consider any. You have a belief that the Book of Revelations is the last book and there can be no other, so you will interpret scripture in whatever manner necessary to conform to you ideal. Doesn't mean your right, just means you're going to interpret it that way regardless of any evidence or any other logic. Point is, there's no sense even arguing it with you because you won't listen. Reminds me of 2 Tim. 4:3
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
You've no scriptural reference to prove your point, nor will you consider scriptural reference to the contrary. So good luck with that.
We're created in his IMAGE (Gen 1:27, Gen 9:6)
We're created in his LIKENESS (Gen 5:1)
Feet (Ex. 24:10)
Fingers (Ex 31:18)
Back parts (Ex 33:23)
Mouth (Num 12:8, Matt 4:4)
Hands (Acts 7:56)
Christ in the very appearance of God (John 14:9), oh and if you don't like my definition of image, look at (2 Cor 4:4, Philip 2:6, Philip 3:21, Hebrew 1:3)
If God doesn't have a body, how can Christ be his "express image of his person" if he doesn't have a body?
As for seeing him
Saw him face to face (Gen 32:30, Ex 33:11, Ex 33:23, Isaiah 6:5)
Appeared to Solomon twice (1 Kings 11:9)
Though you're right. There are verses that say we can not see God and live. Looks like a contradiction, huh? Can you explain it without contradiction? I can, but I would like to let you try the "prove contradictions wrong" shoes on for a bit.
If you're saying that the Book of Mormon doesn't site specific reasoning behind why it has quotes from the Bible, you are completely showing that you have spent absolutely no time actually researching this. Are you reading from a pamplet or is someone feeding you these questions? There is an entire chapter prior to the writing of Isaiah that were included citing specific reasons why Nephi felt prompted to include them. So like I said, I really hope that wasn't your point because if it was, consider this conversation over because you have clearly not spent any time actually studing your claim, but merely quoting from websites.
Umm, front cover of the Book of Mormon. THE BOOK OF MORMON, ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST
It give additional understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or rather, additional explanation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no contradiction between the two, other than those made up on the sites you've listed, which have been taken care of, I believe.
If you want an example, read the book, since you obviously haven't.
Let's see, salvation requires grace, grace requires faith, faith requires works. Therefore, works are required, not to obtain salvation, but to keep it. And I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure we're not done working until we die.
Being born again is not a multi-time experience, just as baptism is not a multi-time experience. Doesn't mean it over after you're baptized though.
Consider Matt 16:27
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
You're welcome to consider yourself saved because of one experience if you wish, but it is very plain that you still have a lot of work to do afterwards. You said yourself that you could be saved and still make mistakes (little red flag about no unclean thing in the presence of God going up) and that God would bring you back. Is that his responsibility, or yours? The Good Shepard does go after the lost sheep, but the lost sheep still have to 1) want to be found, and 2) be willing to return. What happens if they're not willing to return? Are they still saved? According to you they are, cause it's a one time deal and you can't turn away from it. That's an interesting idea.
Oh wow, there's another one of those people who *endured*. He fought a good fight, finished the race, and kept the faith. Now why would he do that if he was already saved? And since you already know the answer to that, why was it important for him to do that? Because without works, his faith is dead. Without faith, grace shall not be extended. Without grace, salvation can not be obtained.
I have no wounds, so salt doesn't sting. I don't care that you don't agree with what I believe in. You have that right. I hate to see you disagree with it, but that is your right.
I would say one last thing. I think we would both agree on two things. All things that are good come from God, and all things that are evil come from Satan. Maybe you should consider where your feelings for my religion are coming from. You have been self-righteous, pompous, condescending, and at points rather rude. Now personally, I don't believe God would tell someone to act that way. So maybe you'd like to consider that before telling me again how salt can sting.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Faith IS a good work. If salvation is purely a gift of God, as you interpret in this fashion, then God is not just, but simply picks and chooses as He pleases without regard to fairness and balance. Kindly spare the rhetoric too, eh? I'm not interested in how you justify your hypocritical conceit.
Salvation is a gift. You are correct. But it is a gift that is extended based upon our faith, and our faith is conditional upon our works.
As you said, faith is the only thing required to be saved. However, faith without works is dead (1 Thes 1:3, James 2:18, 20, 26). If you are not performing the works, you have no faith and are therefore not worthy of salvation through grace.
Gotta go with Vic on this one. That idea sounds awful hypocritical.
While I'm certainly not a theology expert, the last two posts seem to completely ignore the Calvanist traditions, which believe that salvation lies in faith alone. Acts are irrelevant since predestination is an aspect of Calvanism. These would include: Puritan, Reformed Baptist, Congregationalist, some versions of Anglican, and others.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter