nnalyd@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>>Further, Bob, spoke of the JW believing that Christ died for
>>their sins, and rose from the dead. I think that JW doctrine
>>denies both of these doctrines.
>
> wow. Of course we believe this. Does anybody professing to be
> Christian actually deny this. Makes me think of Pauls words at 1 Cor.
> 15:17

The last Watchtower/Awake I read had an article on this. I
remember quite clearly the illustration which had a set
of balance scales with Adam on one side and Jesus on the
other. The caption was to the effect that Jesus' sacrifice
exactly cancelled Adam's sin. The article explained this
more fully. The only thing Jesus accomplished for the
rest of mankind is a _chance_ to earn their salvation.

So "wow", no you don't believe that Jesus died for your
sins. Only that He died so you could pay for your own
sins.

Further, I've had lots of discussions about Jesus' resurrection
with JW's. Invariably they assert that God faked the
resurrection by "keeping a copy of Jesus in His mind" and
then reproducing a being which is only an exact copy of
Jesus. Including nail marks, of course.

That's not a resurrection, so, again "wow", you don't believe
it.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

wrf3@stablecross.com (Bob Felts) writes:
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>>
>> Once again, I challenge you to show me where I have said that one can
>> attain righteousness without the gospel. Better yet, show me where I
>> have said that one can attain righteosness without grace! Or that
>> the righteousness is completely self-willed.
>
>Is this righteousness partially self-willed?

If by this do you meant that it is uncaused except by us, no. Any
act we do is by the power of God's grace. The difference is that
you beleive grace 'forces' or 'requires' action, whereas we say that
is 'enables' action.

>BTW, Steve, part of the problem with these challenges is that what you
>say, and what you imply by what you say, are often at odds with one
>another (at least, in the estimation of some who read your words). The
>same is true of what I write. That's why we enter into these (often
>heated) discussions -- to see whether:
>
>1) we really understood what you said,
>2) you really understood what you said,
>3) we correctly connected the dots between what you said and what
>Scripture says, and
>4) you correctly connected the dots between what you said and what
>Scripture says, and ...
>
>Having read what you wrote in