About The Gospel
An interesting discussion is taking place at "Heavenly Heartburn"... http://heavenlyheartburn.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/the-heart-of-the-gospel/
Your thoughts?
Labels: The FGA and GES talk
posted by mark pierson at 6:57 AM
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Your thoughts?
5 Comments:
I wish somebody could explain this paragraph to me: "The core beliefs of both sides in this debate are not that different. GES people say that the death, burial and ressurection is the context of “believing in Jesus for eternal life.” They say believing “has to be defined and have a context.” So the whole argument is not about what anyone preaches to the lost, just about whether some of it is necessary to be understood to trigger salvation or if it is more proper to say that it is the all-important “context.” To me that is splitting hairs and a doctrinal nuance. It could be a great thought-stretcher and touchpoint for edifying discussion if it wasn’t all so nasty and we didn’t have to hear the word “heresy” and “crossless gospel” and “legalism” bandied back and forth."...
This is the part I can't understand - "GES people say that the death, burial and ressurection is the context of “believing in Jesus for eternal life.” They say believing “has to be defined and have a context.”
If the above statment were true why are there two sides in this?
September 30, 2008 8:43 AM
Mark:
That is from Rose.
Check my blog tomorrow for an article that may shed light on why she makes statements like that and what is wrong with what she is saying.
LM
October 01, 2008 12:59 PM
I know that it was Rose. I have nothing against her personally. In fact I consider her a good friend. However, I do believe that you, Kevl, and JP have nailed the GES position to the wall and I would like to see someone acknowledge this fact rather than squirming to get off the hook.
Kevl has it right in calling for Rose to show her sisterly love for her friends by coming out from amoung them, thereby showing them the right way, and the error of their way.
Mark
October 01, 2008 1:16 PM
Mark,
I am surprised that you feel it is "squirming to get off the hook" for me to say how I REALLY DO see this issue. I have never been one to hold back my thoughts. :~) You know that better than many people.
You and I have disagreed on many things, vehemently (LS) - and I think you are wrong (and vice versa) - but must I show you the "error of your way" by "coming out from among you" regarding our blog friendship? I don't think so! Bloggers need to realize that a blog is not a church. There are no doctrinal statements to sign. It is an informal realm for sharing thoughts and ideas.
I should be flattered that Lou Martuneac thinks I, a lowly housewife, am worthy of a post on his very exclusive blog, but I rather find him to be an unbelievable pest. Too bad I don't visit his blog anymore - I won't be able to read about what makes me tick from the pen of one who has never met me. What a pity he won't be able to "share" it with me.
October 02, 2008 11:35 AM
Mark,
I have just returned from vacation and do not have the time to engage in this discussion. However, I would like to add the following: I have found the tactics of Lou Martuneac to be much like Joseph McCarthy of the 1950’s communist witch hunt fame. He had the nerve to delete a comment at his blog where I referenced an article at our True Free Grace group Blog, and then come here and advertise an article at his blog. I find him despicable, presumptions, and a person who falsely accuses people of positions they do not hold. While I do not agree with the GES, I would like to also state that I do not visit his blog. I guess Rose and I have this in common…………
Wayne
October 03, 2008 11:40 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home