People who need other people to believe as they do in order to feel secure can get pretty angry with folks who don't agree.
I’m not angry here, fren. Just addressing words as I see them, with understanding as I have it, but it’s also true that words can be tricky things to actually convey meaning with. If you understood anger rather than passion out of my emphases, apologies.
What I am saying is that you can't retrofit the law into the Gospel of Grace. You can't say you are saved by grace but you must also do this commandment of the law or be cursed.
Agreed. That simply (obviously) wasn’t what I understood from your statements. Allow me to rephrase that last statement for what I was trying to say.
You should keep and do this commandment of the law as a fruit of salvation.
Many have stepped past that to preaching, “trying to keep the law is legalism”, to the point that it is mainstream to have that position.
We are completely accepted in Jesus through His blood, and I won't compromise on that issue. The law did teach us what sin is, but now Grace should be teaching us what righteousness is, pulling our focus away from sin to behold what is holy and good in heaven.
Conveying the nature of walking these lines can be a tricky thing, indeed. I do agree with this, and am trying to add the balancing side of the statement.
Thanks for your very kind reply. Balance away, my patriot frien. (Boy, the spellcheck really doesn't like that.) I didn't mean to insinuate that you were insecure. I really didn't. I just picked your post to reply, and it was more of a general statement. I was trying to make the point that people often excuse their anger when religion is involved, and their passion can blind them to their own confirmation bias. (i.e. using scripture to confirm something they want to believe or were taught to believe instead of taking it for what it says.)
Tricky indeed.
I'm glad you aren't angry. It's not so pleasant to have a conversation out of doors where the rabid people are.
I’m not angry here, fren. Just addressing words as I see them, with understanding as I have it, but it’s also true that words can be tricky things to actually convey meaning with. If you understood anger rather than passion out of my emphases, apologies.
Agreed. That simply (obviously) wasn’t what I understood from your statements. Allow me to rephrase that last statement for what I was trying to say.
Many have stepped past that to preaching, “trying to keep the law is legalism”, to the point that it is mainstream to have that position.
Conveying the nature of walking these lines can be a tricky thing, indeed. I do agree with this, and am trying to add the balancing side of the statement.
Thanks for your very kind reply. Balance away, my patriot frien. (Boy, the spellcheck really doesn't like that.) I didn't mean to insinuate that you were insecure. I really didn't. I just picked your post to reply, and it was more of a general statement. I was trying to make the point that people often excuse their anger when religion is involved, and their passion can blind them to their own confirmation bias. (i.e. using scripture to confirm something they want to believe or were taught to believe instead of taking it for what it says.)
Tricky indeed.
I'm glad you aren't angry. It's not so pleasant to have a conversation out of doors where the rabid people are.