What controversial beliefs do you hold?

[Godlovesmetwo]

That I am going to heaven.

 

[ColdSummer]

Well some of my beliefs some of you may call straight forward heresy.

I'd say the major one being that at least some of the people who deny Christ may actually end up in heaven.

I know what you're thinking, but hear me out - let's look at two people:

Person A - a young atheist in some western country. His parents are Christians, some of his friends are Christians, and generally he lives in some Christian-friendly area. Many times even his friends tried to convert him into a Christianity. However he's used to his profane way of life and being a Christian would take things like pre-marital sex, drug abuse, consumerism and other stuff he enjoys in life away, so he prefers to stay that way

Person B - a kid in some West African country. Ever since he was born he was taught to worship some wooden idols and those who don't obey them are heavily punished. Then one day some strange white man comes and starts talking about some God who's actually 3 at 1 or something like this, telling him to give up on the idols and risk his life in his pagan* (for clarity, I use word 'pagan' to any non-Christian, non-Jew and non-Muslim religion/atheism. I guess you could call that controversial as well?) community. Two days later the white man is gone and he's just reminded as some weirdo.

This way I have a strong belief that at least Person B, despite hearing the word of God, will be judged based on his conscience and have a good shot making it to Heaven. At some point, at least. Which brings me to:

Not sure if it's exactly controversial, but I have a very strong belief of the existence of purgatory, based on Matthew 5:25-26, and I believe many of us Christians will go through it before going to Heaven, which leads me to:

I believe that God is not some office clerk who will judge people based on some table values. I believe everyone will be judged individually based on their conscience, meaning if two people who sinned - according to the Bible - exactly the same 'ammount of sin', they may end up with two completely different sentence, based on how hard they had to fight against it.

Honestly I cringe everytime I see pictures of fundies with 'God hates gays' banners in US. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Christian homosexual people can go to Heaven as long as they're trying to fight against it and not just giving in. This way I believe it's 'less sinful' when a homosexual man lives alone and ends up having several random one-time sexual encounters in his life because he was simply too weak to resist the urge, rather than 'marrying' another man and devoting his life to permanent adultery, which then again leads me to:

If a man and woman don't marry before God (I'm not sure how common it is in US, but in our progressive Europe it's common that people get married in a town hall by a mayor), I believe it's exactly the same as not marrying at all. On the other hand, I believe that if some people marry before God, then get a divorce and then marries another one, even if it's before God, they're both living in adultery. I believe Matthew 5:32 is very specific on this one, but for some reason people like to ignore it, so I guess you could also take it under the 'controversial' column.

I also don't believe that God 'creates' natural disasters. I believe God once created weather as it is and it's up to us to adapt to it. When I see some people saying God is 'punishing' some poor eastern country for their 'lack of faith' or 'sinful way of life' or whatsoever, I think that's a lot of BS. It's just a reminder for society to start to allocate the funds more efficiently to protect these people from these disaster. Same goes for when a child gets e.g. a bone cancer - well maybe if we weren't spending so much cash on arming ourselves and looking at stars millions of light years away and rather invested more in medicine science research they wouldn't have to die, right? With regards to this:

Not exactly a spiritual view, but I believe that there'll have to be some kind of global revolution against rich people for society to get further. It's not normal that some having over $50 billion and others are dying of hunger.

About stuff like evolution vs creationism and stuff like that, my controversial belief is that it doesn't matter at all. If you believe Earth is 6k years old and Genesis is meant to be taken literally, that's ok for me. If you believe Adam and Eve were in the first 'monkeys' with soul/consciousness alongside the evolution tree, that's also ok. If you believe any combination of these, e.g. if you believe Earth is 4,5 billion years old but people were created as Bible describes, I have no problem with that either. I'm not saying it's wrong to think about it, but people shouldn't be wasting too much time on it because it brings zero spritual value.

 

[parousia70]

Well, I think foreseeing a broader social movement resulting in a war, in this case simply the Romans crushing the Jewish rebellion that would eventually come, crushing it massively as Rome typically would, and the Jews already restless even during Christ's ministry....this kind of broader social result, a war, I think can be foreseen with omniscient knowledge of the present alone. Still leaving a real unpredictability of a single human heart.... This is consistent with seeing broader forces, using total knowledge. He could make us individually unpredictable, yet foresee such a war even without intervening to help cause it at all.

Well, Scripture testifies that not only did He intervene to HELP cause it, He orchestrated it and was THE cause.
Matthew 21:33-45

33 “Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country.34 Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. 35 And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them.37 Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.

40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”

41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.

God was not a spectator of this event simply seeing a broader social movement brewing and making an educated guess as to what was coming. He was the cause and the instrument.

 

[parousia70]

I’m not sharing this to “validate my position.” As a matter of fact, my position had always been classical theism until someone asked me to prove biblically that time is an entity. I couldn’t. It’s not something that *can* be proven biblically. So, as a rational person, I gave that up and allowed room for other possibilities.

Other possibilities such as String theory and/or multiverse?

I would, too, “lean” that God exists outside of time if I could prove with confidence that time was a created entity, like gravity is for example. But even if time is not a created entity, there is no reason to subscribe to the idea that God is somehow “constrained” by it, as you submit. God is not “constrained” by existence (not created) or by love (not created); those are simply realities of which God is.

And if time is merely an illusion/artifact of the limitations of physical existence?

It's always now. there is never a moment that is not "NOW". Time is an illusion.
All there is is the eternal now moment.
But insofar as our physical bodies require cyclic patterns, sleep, wake, hunger, full, and more broadly seasons (which were created) ages, epochs, etc...we have created the concept of time to mark the passing of these things.

God not being a physical entity is not constrained by the linear plane and can exist anywhere in the eternal now moment He chooses, thus can see and be at everywhere in the eternal now all at once.

And I’m not saying, “God pulls a fast one”. No one thinks of it as “pulling a fast one.” I’m saying that Classical Theism subscribes to the idea that God can see the future *because* it is already a done deal and *that* is the very reason God can predict with accuracy and thus can tell us what is going to happen in the future. So they don’t think of it as some kind of “fast one”; they think of it as the future as already taking place in the mind of God and thus he can tell us what’s going to happen.

The Eternal now moment. Yep.

Christianity does not have its foundations on the sure and certain word of prophecy; Christianity has its foundations on the gospel of Christ Jesus, and that alone is sufficient.

The Gospel of Jesus is meaningless if Jesus did not fulfill OT prophesy.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, in that Matthew 21:33-45 passage, we can see that the servants are the prophets to Israel being killed, and then the son is Christ, and also how what was for Israel alone is now opened to all people. You could read it further as you have to mean God set in motion the destruction of the temple in 70AD, or alternatively you could take that as God withholding protection; it could be either or both. But the main message here seems more broad. It seems verse 41 as referring to what happens on the day of judgement in the afterlife and about the Old covenant being replaced. The vineyard is now open to all mankind. Israel no longer has an exclusive advantage in this way.

This altogether doesn't tell us how to resolve our predetermination question. God would be able to foresee that Christ would be crucified for telling the truth to power, as He would do, because of the clear and consistent attitude of the Pharisees and such. He would be able to foresee the destruction of the temple even just from omniscient understanding of the present alone. This could be foreseen, yet individuals could still be made by design to be unpredictable, both.

 

[parousia70]

Well, in that Matthew 21:33-45 passage, we can see that the servants are the prophets to Israel being killed, and then the son is Christ, and also how what was for Israel alone is now opened to all people. You could read it further as you have to mean God set in motion the destruction of the temple in 70AD, or alternatively you could take that as God withholding protection; it could be either or both.

66-70 AD was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28:15-68
And brought to pass by the Hand of God exactly as He promised He would do.

But the main message here seems more broad. It seems verse 41 as referring to what happens on the day of judgement in the afterlife and about the Old covenant being replaced.

Well, the Old Covenant has been replaced, so....

The vineyard is now open to all mankind. Israel no longer has an exclusive advantage in this way.

Exactly

 

[surrender1]

Well, Scripture testifies that not only did He intervene to HELP cause it, He orchestrated it and was THE cause.
Matthew 21:33-45

33 “Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country.34 Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. 35 And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them.37 Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.

40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”

41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.

God was not a spectator of this event simply seeing a broader social movement brewing and making an educated guess as to what was coming. He was the cause and the instrument.

Because the ancients saw all good and bad coming from the gods, Yahweh always got the credit for even destruction coming upon a rebellious nation. But a closer look at scripture shows it's simply Yahweh removing a protective hand and allowing nature (i.e. wickedness of men’s hearts) to take its course.

Our God is a God of restoration. Our God is not a destroyer. That’s the satan’s job.

 

[parousia70]

Because the ancients saw all good and bad coming from the gods, Yahweh always got the credit for even destruction coming upon a rebellious nation. But a closer look at scripture shows it's simply Yahweh removing a protective hand and allowing nature (i.e. wickedness of men’s hearts) to take its course.

Interesting take... but when I take a closer look at scripture it seems quite clear that the way the prophets describe the fall of nations and kingdoms, it is always depicted as the result of Gods actions, not of His inaction.

For a contextual example, There is a famous Biblical Battle Between King David and Saul..
Notice the Language used:

God Comes to End Saul's Kingdom - 1000 BC
Then the earth shook and quaked, the foundations of heaven were trembling and were shaken, because He was angry. Smoke went up out of His nostrils, fire from His mouth devoured; coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet. And He rode on a cherub and flew; And He appeared on the wings of the wind. And He made darkness canopies around Him, a mass of waters, thick clouds of the sky. From the brightness before Him coals of fire were kindled. The LORD thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered His voice. And He sent out arrows, and scattered them, Lightning, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were laid bare by the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of His nostrils. (2 Sam 22:8-16)

Notice what David describes God doing in that Battle:

1) The Shaking of the foundations of the entire earth and heaven
2) Smoke billowing from God's Nostrils
3) Coals of Fire being Kindled by the Brightness of God
4) God being seen riding a Cherub, Appearing on the Clouds
5) God Shooting Arrows
6) God Laying the Foundation of the Entire Earth Bare By the Breath from His Nostrils

We have countless examples of the Father coming in His great glory during the Old Testamental period (be sure to note the graphic, physical descriptions and explicit "visual" connotations of Yahweh's comings):

[On Yahweh's coming to Egypt -- early 700s BC] Behold, Yahweh rides on a swift cloud, and comes to Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall tremble at his presence; and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it. I will stir up the Egyptians against the Egyptians (Isaiah 19:1-2)

[On Yahweh's coming during the Maccabean Period] For I have bent Judah for me, I have filled the bow with Ephraim; and I will stir up your sons, Zion, against your sons, Greece, and will make you as the sword of a mighty man. Yahweh shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning; and the Lord Yahweh will blow the trumpet, and will go with whirlwinds of the south. Yahweh of Hosts will defend them; and they shall devour, and shall tread down the sling-stones; and they shall drink, and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, like the corners of the altar. Yahweh their God will save them in that day (Zechariah 9:13-16)

[On Yahweh's coming to Israel for Babylonian Exile - 6th Century BC] Therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh: Because you are turbulent more than the nations that are round about you, and have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my ordinances, neither have done after the ordinances of the nations that are round about you; therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh: Behold, I, even I, am against you; and I will execute judgments in the midst of you before the eyes of the nations. I will do in you that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all your abominations (Ez 5:7-9)

[On Yahweh's coming to Israel for Babylonian Exile - 6th Century BC] As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, surely with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out, will I be king over you: and I will bring you out from the peoples, and will gather you out of the countries in which you are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out; and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there will I enter into judgment with you face to face...Hear the word of Yahweh: Thus says the Lord Yahweh, Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burnt thereby. All flesh shall see that I, Yahweh, have kindled it...Thus says Yahweh: Behold, I am against you, and will draw forth my sword out of its sheath, and will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked. Seeing then that I will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, therefore shall my sword go forth out of its sheath against all flesh from the south to the north: and all flesh shall know that I, Yahweh, have drawn forth my sword out of its sheath (Ez 20:33-35,47-48; 21:3-5)

Jehovah hath made bare His holy arm before the eyes of all nations (Isa 52:10)


God is not a Passive spectator in these events.

 

[surrender1]

Other possibilities such as String theory and/or multiverse?



And if time is merely an illusion/artifact of the limitations of physical existence?

It's always now. there is never a moment that is not "NOW". Time is an illusion.
All there is is the eternal now moment.
But insofar as our physical bodies require cyclic patterns, sleep, wake, hunger, full, and more broadly seasons (which were created) ages, epochs, etc...we have created the concept of time to mark the passing of these things.

God not being a physical entity is not constrained by the linear plane and can exist anywhere in the eternal now moment He chooses, thus can see and be at everywhere in the eternal now all at once.


The Eternal now moment. Yep.



The Gospel of Jesus is meaningless if Jesus did not fulfill OT prophesy.

Yes, I agree that God can exist anywhere in the “now moment;” I believe in an omnipresent God. But that doesn’t mean that God can (or would want to, for that matter) say with certainty that I am going to eat cereal for breakfast today rather than pancakes. Again, this would be true if the future doesn’t really exist as an entity and thus wouldn’t have already taken place anywhere “out there”, even in the mind of God. Nevertheless, being an omnipresent God who has known my thoughts and intentions of my heart, my preferences, etc. etc. since birth, he would be able to predict with amazing accuracy, even if it couldn’t be said he would know with absolute certainty.

I do think Jesus fulfilled prophecy, but I also think that very little of that prophecy is a *foretelling* of a future event. The majority of prophecy spoken of in the NT that Jesus fulfilled is *looking back* at historical OT events and *reapplying* them to something that happened in the life of Jesus. This is a form of midrash commonly used in Jesus’ day. It was a sort of interpretive method where they freely reapplied scripture to a new situation. So, it’s not like they rejected the original meaning of the OT text and how it originally applied to a literal historical event. It’s that they saw how a current-day event gave deeper, fuller (“to fill up”) meaning to a particular OT text.

For example, when Matthew says that Jesus fulfilled Hosea’s “out of Egypt I have called my son”, he is not saying that the prophet was talking about a messiah 700 years into the future. Matthew knew that the prophet was talking about a historical event regarding God’s son Israel coming out of Egypt in the exodus event. (Hosea 11.1). But Matthew recognized how something in Jesus’ life brought out a fuller meaning of that text and took the opportunity to reapply it to that event in Jesus’ life.

 

[Halbhh]

66-70 AD was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28:15-68
And brought to pass by the Hand of God exactly as He promised He would do.
....

You could try to take it as prophecy, but it definitely reads as a warning, and has a key word in it -- "if".

That's a very striking word in a way. Instead of 'this will happen' like a prophecy, it's is more of an if-then -- "if" the people do certain actions, then certain consequences will happen.

As we read in other parts of the OT, Israel indeed subsequently broke major laws given as referred to, including such evils as worshipping Baal (notably, as this would mean child sacrifice in fire!....) and other evils, and then also in the OT, long before Christ, suffered the listed consequences, such as enslavement by other nations.

-----------
Adding -- we notice several times in the gospels that Christ specifically takes certain actions in particular in order to specifically fulfill prophecies, with awareness, and He several times refers to this.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm a Calvinist is that controversial enough?

I think justification by grace through faith alone qualifies.

 

[mark kennedy]

That I am going to heaven.

Personally I think heaven is coming here. There is 'absent from the body, present with the Lord', so there is a sense in which that's true but at the end of the age God is here, that makes it heaven in every way that matters.

 

[mark kennedy]

I have a number of views I always thought were traditional but apparently are somewhat controversial. I'm an Old Earth Creationist, the universe and the cosmos were created perhaps billions of years ago but life was created 6000 years ago. At one time this wouldn't have been considered controversial but these days it's mired in contention both from theistic evolution and young earth creationism.

There's a couple of others, Song of Songs is about a wedding in Solomon's court. The groom was a Judean, perhaps of the house of David and the bride was from the Sharon Valley and her mother was from Lebanon. There is a lot of figurative language, your eyes are doves eyes and a lot of other such romantic lyrics. I've never encountered that interpretation once but most people just over look it. The whole the groom is God/Jesus and the bride is Israel/church is all well and good but not the purpose of the song.

I don't believe that most of the Proverbs can be attributed to David and Solomon, the ending to Mark was lost and what we have is an educated guess at best. I have serious doubts that the woman found in adultery was a part of the original.

I believe, though I'm not entirely convinced in the annihilation of the body and soul in the lake of fire. I believe in a mid-trib. rapture although I think it is more of a post-tribulation, not that it's a big deal doctrinally for me.

 

[surrender1]

If God is an active destroyer of life, it can’t be said that he is a God of restoration. To say he breaks down that which he sets out to restore is schizophrenic. And to call for the worship of a God who is holy and completely “other than” and at the same time imply he’s no better than any other ruthless, violent dictator who has lived is a big reason as to why there’s so many atheists. Who’d want to worship a god that’s just a bigger and stronger version of Hitler (one who has the capability to love more and also destroy more lives)? I’m sure Hitler loved his own dearly. But that didn’t mean he couldn’t wipe out men, women, and children who were his enemies.

The prophets attributed to God both good and bad. That’s just the way it was communicated. And the apocalyptic language wasn’t to be taken literally. Additionally, the picture the OT prophets had of God was incomplete. Many say that the OT God is angry and wrathful but the NT God is peaceful and loving. Of course, it’s the same God. One picture is incomplete and one is not. Jesus, who is the full and final revelation of God, tells us to follow *his* example which is the way of peace, not violence. Whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father. Therefore, if it (even OT texts) doesn’t look like Jesus, it’s not the correct image of the Father. There is no God other than the one seen in the face of Christ.

 

[expos4ever]

Perhaps the most interesting "controversial" belief I hold is attributable to NT Wright (assuming I understand him correctly). Mr. Wright makes the case that the Law of Moses was given to Israel to make her more sinful, not less. Loosely speaking, the Law was given to "entice" the dark powers and principalities, understood as "personal" forces, to be lured into taking up residence in Israel. From there, they are further localized in the body of Jesus on the cross and are there condemned and defeated. On this view, God "tricks" sin so that it becomes vulnerable to defeat; first sin is lured into Israel and then into the one man Jesus. Once there, it is cornered and vulnerable. And it is defeated on the Cross.

 

[Halbhh]

If God is an active destroyer of life, it can’t be said that he is a God of restoration. To say he breaks down that which he sets out to restore is schizophrenic. And to call for the worship of a God who is holy and completely “other than” and at the same time imply he’s no better than any other ruthless, violent dictator who has lived is a big reason as to why there’s so many atheists. Who’d want to worship a god that’s just a bigger and stronger version of Hitler (one who has the capability to love more and also destroy more lives)? I’m sure Hitler loved his own dearly. But that didn’t mean he couldn’t wipe out men, women, and children who were his enemies.

The prophets attributed to God both good and bad. That’s just the way it was communicated. And the apocalyptic language wasn’t to be taken literally. Additionally, the picture the OT prophets had of God was incomplete. Many say that the OT God is angry and wrathful but the NT God is peaceful and loving. Of course, it’s the same God. One picture is incomplete and one is not. Jesus, who is the full and final revelation of God, tells us to follow *his* example which is the way of peace, not violence. Whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father. Therefore, if it (even OT texts) doesn’t look like Jesus, it’s not the correct image of the Father. There is no God other than the one seen in the face of Christ.

Yes, to even get a sense of what is going on in many places in the Old Testament, one needs to read many full books. For instance at one point Israel is directed to entirely destroy some cities, but only much later in other chapters and in other books even do we find out precisely why, that the cities did "even" the abomination of ongoing routine child sacrifice in fire(!) (as in Deu 12:31, Lev 18:21, 24-28, and other places), a profound level of evil that even Israel would be infected with itself in time.... The casual reader won't know this kind of stuff, not having read in other books fully. One needs to have read entire books fully to have encountered it. It seems like brutal slaughter until we add such pieces, including the decisive part in Romans 2:6-16, which helps us understand what would be the ultimate outcome of destroying even the young -- they will live again forever in bliss.

 

[Halbhh]

Perhaps the most interesting "controversial" belief I hold is attributable to NT Wright (assuming I understand him correctly). Mr. Wright makes the case that the Law of Moses was given to Israel to make her more sinful, not less. Loosely speaking, the Law was given to "entice" the dark powers and principalities, understood as "personal" forces, to be lured into taking up residence in Israel. From there, they are further localized in the body of Jesus on the cross and are there condemned and defeated. On this view, God "tricks" sin so that it becomes vulnerable to defeat; first sin is lured into Israel and then into the one man Jesus. Once there, it is cornered and vulnerable. And it is defeated on the Cross.

Fortunately we don't have to have an view on that, necessarily. But I was reminded of a recent striking part I read through in Ezekiel 20, which included for instance these 2 verses (but one should just read through all the chapter) -- "8“ ‘But they rebelled against me and would not listen to me; they did not get rid of the vile images they had set their eyes on, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my anger against them in Egypt. " ......"25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live;"...

 

[mark kennedy]

Perhaps the most interesting "controversial" belief I hold is attributable to NT Wright (assuming I understand him correctly). Mr. Wright makes the case that the Law of Moses was given to Israel to make her more sinful, not less. Loosely speaking, the Law was given to "entice" the dark powers and principalities, understood as "personal" forces, to be lured into taking up residence in Israel. From there, they are further localized in the body of Jesus on the cross and are there condemned and defeated. On this view, God "tricks" sin so that it becomes vulnerable to defeat; first sin is lured into Israel and then into the one man Jesus. Once there, it is cornered and vulnerable. And it is defeated on the Cross.

That doesn't sound terribly controversial, it's perfectly comparable with Pauline and evangelical doctrine. However, the Gospel itself is generally controversial.

 

[Hosick]

I'm a Calvinist is that controversial enough?

Hi there,

I have seen this Calvinist term used quite a bit by Americans, can you briefly explain what you mean by being a Calvinist as your denomination?

PS, if there is a more suitable thread for this please move it mods. Thanks

Ryan

 

[expos4ever]

That doesn't sound terribly controversial, it's perfectly comparable with Pauline and evangelical doctrine. However, the Gospel itself is generally controversial.

I am pleased that someone doesn't think this is particularly controversial. I would have assumed that almost all Christians would take up pitchforks against anyone who implies the law makes people more sinful.