     AcolyteJohn (Acolyte) New member Username: Acolyte Post Number: 10 Registered: 7-2018 |
Apparently Mr. Jackson assumed that when I referred to him as nuts, I was making a judgement about his personal mental health, in fact, I was using that terms to describe his confusion and false teaching about obj/subj justification. But I was wrong to describe him as such and my remark was inappropriate. I apologize. I do not think Mr. Jackson is nuts, per se, just his teaching on the issue of justification I find to be false, wrong and has caused him to label many others as false teachers. Sorry for any confusion. So, I withdraw the remark and apologize for it and will follow Cardinal Cascione's directive going forward. |
GJ - Anyone is welcome to debate Biblical doctrine with me. However, conclusions require warrants (evidence) - not just the repetition of arguments from others.
If someone wants to write up a careful exegesis of Romans 4, I will be glad to address that.
Yes, there is a large group of "experts" supporting UOJ, but there are hundreds more advocating the Immaculate Conception of Mary and her Assumption.
When dabblers like Jay Webber simply quote something and claim,"That proves OJ in Luther!" - a lot more research is required. Verbosity is not research.
We should follow Luther's example and forget the great and wise from the recent past, starting over with a unified approach to the Scriptures.
The sign of mature research is entertaining opposing views at the same time and sorting out the facts.
