Difference between revisions of "Talk:Grace"
Graham grove (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: Yep, I see the contradiction. It's tricky to word well isn't it. I've tried rewording it so that it doesn't contradict and makes sense. Thanks. --[[User:Graham grove|Graham grove]] 14:02, 18 July 2008 (PDT) | : Yep, I see the contradiction. It's tricky to word well isn't it. I've tried rewording it so that it doesn't contradict and makes sense. Thanks. --[[User:Graham grove|Graham grove]] 14:02, 18 July 2008 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Absolutely tricky. It is even more tricky to avoid the justification debate at that point and leave the article open to both sides. The current version is fine, I think. --[[User:Benedikt|Benedikt]] 14:08, 18 July 2008 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:08, 18 July 2008
"Only through Jesus Christ"
I can't edit this article. The clause: It is only through faith in Jesus Christ, in his death and resurrection, that we can return to God. is imo a little misunderstanding. First, the cited bible verses doesn't support the "only". Secondly, it is a contradiction to the aforementioned Although nothing we do can restore us to a right relationship with God, God himself restores that relationship. because it says that "our faith" saves us. I would change it to the following. Although nothing we do can restore us to a right relationship with God, his grace himself restores that relationship. Only through this grace to which faith in Jesus Christ is the answer and which is applied (maybe a better word here) through his death and resurrection, we can return to God. It should be also noted that for some not only faith but also works are the human answer to the grace of god. --Benedikt 13:56, 18 July 2008 (PDT)
- Yep, I see the contradiction. It's tricky to word well isn't it. I've tried rewording it so that it doesn't contradict and makes sense. Thanks. --Graham grove 14:02, 18 July 2008 (PDT)
- Absolutely tricky. It is even more tricky to avoid the justification debate at that point and leave the article open to both sides. The current version is fine, I think. --Benedikt 14:08, 18 July 2008 (PDT)
