Search results

Thanks for your post, and the link. This is one of the best articles I've read on the subject -- excellent.

Charlie, I believe you're a good person. You're don't come across as belligerent or aggressive. I believe we can disagree on some things without the hostility that I have encountered from some, and in other places. Discussion is possible with you because of that, and I'm enjoying the discussion...

I agree with much of your post. What I disagree with is the 'wrath of God' part -- that is PSA and unscriptural.

I totally agree with your last sentence. I totally disagree with your second sentence.

I guess we see legalism differently.

I feel sorry for people who believe PSA, who hold to such a monstrous view of God. It is a pagan concept.

The latter.

No, I don't believe God did something against His will, because I do not believe that God punished and killed Jesus. If it has been His will to do so, He would have. Isaiah says we thought that's what God did , but we were mistaken. God could not have done that; it was impossible because that...

PSA holds that God punished and killed Jesus. Isaiah 53 contradicts that. And the theory is an insult to God's character.

And I hope the "christians" who turned him away weren't relying on their name of 'Christian' to save them on judgement day.

"As the story is told, Gandhi, who was a practicing Hindu, found Jesus intriguing. He read the Gospels and wanted to know more about Christ. On a Sunday morning he stopped by a Christian church in Calcutta where he was turned away. Since he was not part of the high-caste Indians nor a white...

They didn't move too far away from RC error when they (Calvin and Luther) took Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and expanded and worsened it into PSA. Also, the Magisterial Protestant view of God and man fits right in with the Roman/Latin/Western errors.

This is an excellent post. JonC, I don't need to say much, with you posting. :)

I suggest that you look up the circumstance behind what Gandhi said.

I haven't found that. I know of a young woman from the streets who came to Jesus. She wanted to go to church and found a Pentecostal church. She wanted to look her best. She wore jewelry she had in her previous life, painted her fingernails, had her hair cut and styled, dressed up, and went to...

Not trying to find the edge of the line. I think it's good to try to recognize and avoid the legalism that many Christians seem to fall into.

I'm constantly amazed, but probably shouldn't be, at how people are not able to be objective when it comes to doctrine, at how they are bonded to the worldview that they are raised in and how this affects their interpretations, and they don't even realize that. For instance, in the southern US...

But what is 'long', and who determines what is long? For example, when the Beatles came on the scene, they were considered to have long hair. But it got much longer later. So, what is 'long"

Excellent post. I'm exactly where you are on this. Quite remarkable, actually. I guess that opens up the possibility that you and I will get charged with the accusation of being the same person -- again. :)

As you say, we all have our opinion on what is considered long, and I'll add that goes for a man or a woman. To me, this is all legalistic. Like the question of adornment -- jewelry, etc. If you restrict women from being pastors based on what you believe Paul taught, you'd better be consistent...