Are Jehovahs Witnesses Saved?

[Michael The Disciple]

No one steppers want to defend the one step? From what I can tell it seems Jehovah Witnesses are more "Christian" than the Evangelicals. They (JW) take the word of God far more seriously.

Evangelical one step Trinitarians basically give a license to sin and go on with their life. JW's actually teach discipleship.

Why give Trins a pass while excluding JW?

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

No one steppers want to defend the one step? From what I can tell it seems Jehovah Witnesses are more "Christian" than the Evangelicals. They (JW) take the word of God far more seriously.

Evangelical one step Trinitarians basically give a license to sin and go on with their life. JW's actually teach discipleship.

Why give Trins a pass while excluding JW?

Michael how big is that brush you just painted with? I have met and know Trins who are broken over their sin and live a life separate unto the Lord!

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

Michael how big is that brush you just painted with? I have met and know Trins who are broken over their sin and live a life separate unto the Lord!

Well I realize it was broad but not as broad as you may think. I have regular discussions with Evangelicals and believe me it is SHOCKING what many of them believe.

Practically all of them say they sin every day!Its one thing to be broken over your sin its another to cease from doing it.

I have no respect for the Evangelical Faith. I realize there are some spirit filled people there and that's why I keep reaching out to them.

My point is why do people exclude JW'S from salvation but accept Trinitarians? What makes the difference?

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Well I realize it was broad but not as broad as you may think. I have regular discussions with Evangelicals and believe me it is SHOCKING what many of them believe.

Practically all of them say they sin every day!Its one thing to be broken over your sin its another to cease from doing it.

I have no respect for the Evangelical Faith. I realize there are some spirit filled people there and that's why I keep reaching out to them.

My point is why do people exclude JW'S from salvation but accept Trinitarians? What makes the difference?

Would it have anything to do with denying the deity of Christ?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

Would it have anything to do with denying the deity of Christ?

Oh? So it matters about who Jesus is? They say they believe he is the son of God. They also say God created the Universe by him.

What makes the Trinitarian version of who Jesus is better than their version?

[Blackxeas]

They're pretty much going to hell with the majority of this forum, humbly speaking.

[Abiding Now]

The JWs and Mormons are both American religions originating in America in the last century.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

The JWs and Mormons are both American religions originating in America in the last century.

Good point, depending upon what exactly you mean by "originating." Given a strict definition of "originating," seems Apostolic Pentecostalism also originated in America in the 20th Century. Of course, OPs will disagree, just like JWs will disagree about where and when Abiding Now says they really first came from.

Considering the Long Dark Era where the most powerful winner (ie, Catholics) wrote the history books, then basically anything is unprovable and unfalsifiable regarding any sectarian claims about their origin. (That is, regarding various sects' plausible claims about what was really "original.")

So, why did an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omniloving and Omnibenovolent God allow, no rather, demonstrably intend the Long Dark Era of Catholic rule, not to mention its literary dominance?

So, in the end, the Gates of Hell really did not prevail against the true gospel, at least not prevailing in consideration of the Azuza Street revivals and Oneness Revelations circa 1906? (Yeah, right!)

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Good point, depending upon what exactly you mean by "originating." Given a strict definition of "originating," seems Apostolic Pentecostalism also originated in America in the 20th Century. Of course, OPs will disagree, just like JWs will disagree about where Abiding Now says they really first came from.

Considering the Long Dark Era where the most powerful winner (ie, Catholics) wrote the history books, then basically anything is unprovable and unfalsifiable regarding any sectarian claims about their origin. (That is, regarding various sects' plausible claims about what was really "original.")

So, why did an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omniloving and Omnibenovolent God allow, no rather, demonstrably intend the Long Dark Era of Catholic rule, not to mention its literary dominance?

So, in the end, the Gate of Hell really did not prevail, or at least until the Azuza Street revival and Oneness Revelations? (Yeah right.)

I am a firm believer that God's church has always prevailed. May not have been called Apostolic or Pentecostal, but there were folks receiving the Holy Ghost. Barton Stone was baptizing in Jesus name during the Cane Ridge Revival 100 years BEFORE Azuza.


The congregations where Stone labored agreed with and submitted to this new teaching on baptism. As Stone further studied, he and others came to believe that baptism “was ordained for the remission of sins, and ought to be administered in the name of Jesus to all believing penitents.”

Stone recounted a story when, at a meeting at Concord, mourners were gathering before the stand for prayers, but none found comfort. Stone pondered why they found no relief in this custom and the accompanying prayers. He recounted in his mind the words of Peter from Acts 2.38. Then he recited them in the hearing of all while reasoning, “…were Peter here, he would thus address these mourners.”

http://veritasvenator.com/2013/07/31...e-and-baptism/

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

I am a firm believer that God's church has always prevailed. May not have been called Apostolic or Pentecostal, but there were folks receiving the Holy Ghost. Barton Stone was baptizing in Jesus name during the Cane Ridge Revival 100 years BEFORE Azuza.


The congregations where Stone labored agreed with and submitted to this new teaching on baptism. As Stone further studied, he and others came to believe that baptism “was ordained for the remission of sins, and ought to be administered in the name of Jesus to all believing penitents.”

Stone recounted a story when, at a meeting at Concord, mourners were gathering before the stand for prayers, but none found comfort. Stone pondered why they found no relief in this custom and the accompanying prayers. He recounted in his mind the words of Peter from Acts 2.38. Then he recited them in the hearing of all while reasoning, “…were Peter here, he would thus address these mourners.”

http://veritasvenator.com/2013/07/31...e-and-baptism/

Ok, maybe you have pushed back a recorded account of Act 2:38 gospel (correct response) by some 60 or 80 years. No reference in the blog to WHEN this new take actually happened, but Google reveals the gentleman Barton died in 1844. So fine, let's accept this obscure account to probably predate Azuza Street by some decades. The question remains, what about the other 1800+ years where Catholics held all the cards and influence in behalf of the supposed god, and all according to the Omnipotent God's plan to reveal himself? No, all you really have to go on is your faith, ie, >> I am a firm believer that God's church has always prevailed.>>

Firm believer? Nice. Always prevailed? No, not according to what rest of the world thinks "prevailed" means. But go ahead, redefine what "prevailed" means. But I get it--preserve some kind of claimable geneology of the apostolic faith, at all costs.