To those who believe Herb it truly was worth it. To those who never had an opportunity to hear and believe, we leave to his righteous judgment and God always does the right thing.

To whom did Jesus offer his life? The writer of Hebrews speaks of an offering, but why and who demanded Jesus' life?

Paul was the first, and probably foremost expositor for explaining Christ's death. He and the later NT writers brought together ideas from the Hebrew Bible that originally had no connection with one another and juxtaposed them into a new synthesis. Conversant in the Hebrew use of mishna, or re-interpretation, he used this method with the OT prophecies so consistently that they merged together in the reader's mind. There was no uniform picture of Jesus.

Once it was accepted that Jesus was the Messiah, or "anointed" they began reading the Hebrew scriptures and each time it spoke of a king, prophet, or priest, it was immediately interpreted as a reference to Jesus. Eventually, the three figures--servant, messiah and Jesus--became inseparable.

Matthew, especially, used almost ever single event in Jesus' life "to fulfil the Scriptures."
Numerous comparisons were made to OT figures and re-stated as ocurring in Christ's life: his birth was announced by angels, as was Ishmael, Isaac and Samson; his 40 days of temptation in paralleled the Israelites' 40 years in the wilderness; Isaiah had foretold his miracles. Was he really offered vinegar to drink and lots were cast for his garments? Or was this suggested by verses from the Psalms?

Did "inspired reinterpretation" cease then, or do we not still apply the allegorical method to scripture to harmonize it with today's world?

It’s puzzling to me that Douglass finds his theology of the Atonement so much superior to Mel Gibsons, when I find little to distinguish the two. Both are highly steeped in “legalism”, both rely on violence to effect redemption, both depend heavily on some obscure and dubious transaction between God and Jesus -- and possibly some kind of heavenly accountant -- leaving the real beneficiaries, said to be us, off God knows where in the periphery. Besides; payment language is rendered meaningless once payment has been rescinded. For the legal/payment model to work, Jesus should still be dead.

That Douglass sees his view of scripture as “unambiguous” reminds me that, say, J Denny Weaver (The Non-Violent Atonement) also sees scripture as supporting his own conclusions. Which are VERY different. Imagine that! I read scripture, it makes sense to me, therefore the scripture MUST mean just what I thought it did! Oh my. Thankfully, we have people like Elaine around to remind us just how much of ourselves we see in and extract from scripture. We read it in ways that “work” to our minds. (How could we do other?)

Yet, take a favorite text of mine 1 Cor 15:22 which reads “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” (awful sorry I can’t read it to you in Greek or Latin or Aramaic etc) and yes! I unambiguously see Universal restoration! What you say? Most Christians disagree with me? It sure seems straightforward and unambiguous to me... Oh well. To a real extent, ambiguity rests in the eye of the beholder. If you don’t believe me just read any thread on this site! Don’t we ALL have an inclination to come across like “it’s unambiguous; I’m right!”?? If a position seemed INcorrect to us, what motive would we have to defend it??

I’m also troubled by the conflation of the metaphor of “crucible”, which has all quarter been used to refer to the redemptive purposes of suffering, with the suffering of Christ. Christ, as perfect, sinless, Son of God surly does not need redemption or character purification. So why refer to HIS suffering as “crucible”?

Have a very Splendid Sabbath

I've just finished reading _Come Be My Light_ by and about Mother Teresa. For over 40 years she experienced a loss of the sense of God's presence, an interior darkness and emptyness that she came to identify with Jesus' feeling of abandonment on the cross. She is a person I admire greatly, yet I was troubled by her "Catholic" desire for, and seeking of, suffering. She sought it because she wanted to show Jesus how much she loved Him.

Is it possible that Jesus' mission to earth was to show us what God is like, and in submitting to his death instead of calling a legion of angels to deliver him, to show the world how much God loves us?

I saw the movie.

I think that we should not have expected it to adequately cover every aspect of the crucifixion. It was a well-done movie because its focus was so narrow.

(It was also the way it was because it was so very Catholic.)

Take the focus for what it is. Other movies might focus on other parts of the crucifixion or Jesus' life. This was the best yet to come out of Hollywood.

I just wish so many people did not use this as a substitute for Bible reading.

Thanks, Dr. Douglass, for insightful and truly Biblical remarks about the suffering of our Lord and Savior. I have to wonder why "progressive" Adventists(?) must so often reflect conclusions so contrary to the teachings of Scripture and the SDA church.

May the Good Lord give each of us true insights into His great sacrifice without the imposition of secular philosophies. Have a a true Sabbath of worship, all of you.

"Secular philosophies," eh?

A question mark after the Adventist, eh?

Your Friend, you're welcome to comment, but you might make more of an impact if you marshaled actual textual, critical, theological evidence. These slight, little jabs really don't add to the conversation.

Standing around slapping ourselves on the back for being saved and thinking happy thoughts about Jesus seeing our face when he died may seem "insightful" to you, but it just doesn't sum up the totality of Christianity for me. I'm saved, great! Now I, and some other Adventists, especially the next generation, would like to think about how we can represent that Christ-risen to others. Sometimes that means reading scary secular philosophy in college, sometimes that means not parroting the sexual insecurity of some older cultures and realizing that two women who love each other without reproducing also bring a smile to Jesus' face.

If repeating over and over, "Jesus saw my face when he died," really gets your mind and heart excited, good. But don't attack other believers because they like to think about Jesus' life of radical service too.

Beyond literalism or its fixation with privatistic salvation, according to Alister McGrath, the defining characteristic of fundamentalism is its oppositionalist mentality.

As Martin Marty has written, "Fundamentalism in any context takes form when members of already conservative or traditional movements experience threat." In this case, the threat did not come from Catholicism, as in the past, but from secularizing forces.

It will be interesting to see if tendencies in Adventist oppositionalism will follow this trend in seeing "secular philosophies" or "progressives" as threats akin to the usual beastly fears.

It's also interesting in Fox News' brave, new war on "secular progressives" that some Adventists seem to be parroting the "loud voice" of some traditionalist Catholicism.

Alex, excellent comment. Those threatened by alternate beliefs command little respect when they can do nothing but condemn those who do not see things as they do. There are many ways individuals perceive God, and primarily from the Bible which gives us a variety of ways. Why should today's perspectives not also be varied?

Before this thread fades to black, a couple more items which don’t make sense to me…
If all that God “required” was a death, death in Gethsemane should suffice just fine. The “payment” would still have been “made”. The so called “need” for the death to be public seems hollow given that only a tiny number of earths population witnessed it. Public witnesses serve to help prove that He really really did die I guess; and thus would help validate the subsequent resurrection.

Second, I hear this idea often; it’s from EGW DA… that the fate of humanity trembled in the balance. However, given how many believe in God’s complete foreknowledge, (another thread here recently) this notion makes little sense; for the outcome would have always been fully known. No suspense whatsoever.

I do however agree with Douglass (see; I’m not a total meany “YourFriend”!) when he notes that Christ “...died to prove Satan wrong in his diabolical promise to Eve, “You will not surely die” (Gen. 3:3 NKJV)... He died to prove to us all that sin leads to entropy—the dissolution of all things affected by sin and sinner. Contradicting the laws of the universe leads to death.” If one needs (ie finds it helpful) to speak of this revelation as some kind of “payment” to the knowledge of the Universe in order to definitively reveal what had previously been contested, that’s legitimate I suppose. Even important.

However, Paul and Peter speak of Christ dying “once for all”
… Romans 6:10 “The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.” 1 Peter 3:18 “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit”

While logically, this death “once for all” could mean a death “in place of” (substitution) it logically also could mean “affecting” or, “to the benefit of” or, “in support of” and so on. Those meanings I find far more fruitful. More exciting to me however, is the strong implication that this death was in fact the last “real” death the Universe will ever see.

Sorry folks:

Joselito mentioned that one can edit his own comments so I tried it and made a tiny change. Except when you hit "post comment" it does not go back to it's original spot in the sequence. Just an FYI learned from a little experimenting.

Herbert Douglas writes:
"What was causing his suffering?...He was suffering what all sinners will experience in what we call, “the second death (Rev. 20:6 NKJV). He was experiencing, “God-forsakenness” (Matt. 27:46 NKJV). “The fate of humanity trembled in the balance.…It was not yet too late.…Let the transgressor receive the penalty of his sin.…He fell dying to the ground.…God suffered with His Son.…The angel came not to take the cup from Christ’s hand, but to strengthen Him to drink it.…Christ’s agony did not cease, but His depression and discouragement left Him.…He had borne that which no human being could ever bear; for He had tasted the sufferings of death for every man.”1"

As is so frequently the case in modern Adventism, Adventist have let Ellen White do their thinking for them. Even when it makes little sense. So Jesus suffered the second death. Yet Jesus was resurrected. Well what defines the Second death in the book of Revelation? No resurrection from death! Yet Jesus came and told His disciples He was to be handed over and killed and he would rise again. Now they seemed not to understand it but it is recorded in the Gospels that Jesus knew it. Yet to make the Penal theory seem more risky we have added a whole bunch of things that are not found anywhere in the Bible and made them central to our atonement theory.

Was Jesus really asking God why have you forsaken me? Did He not know what His mission was? What was going to happen? Why in the Genesis story does God ask the hiding Adam and Eve where are you? Did He not know? Of course He knew and He knew what they had done yet He asked them that also. Why does God make statements such as these. Where are you, Why have you forsaken me. The answer is He wants to draw the hearer into the story to examine something else. To Adam and Eve it allowed them to come clean and explain themselves. On the cross it allows the hearer to reflect on the tragedy to triumph found in Psalm 22 (see Psalm on the cross at http://newprotestants.com/Psalm.htm )which began with those words. The Psalmist asked why did God forsake him and as the Psalm continues we find that God never did forsake him. Jesus Knew what He was doing and what He had come to do. Nowhere in the Bible does it indicate that Jesus was separated from God the Father. How could divinity separate from divinity it would not make any sense.

Jesus said He had the power to lay down His life and take it up again. Do we not believe that, apparently not if we think divinty separated from divinity. If we accept that Jesus suffered the second death. Well of course those who hold this second death idea will squirm a bit and then say it was a type of the second death or that..well it only lasted a moment because after all Jesus committed His Spirit to God and told the thief that he would be with Him in paradise. We become experts at double talk and yet we claim we derive our doctrines from the Bible. Something is wrong with this picture.

Dear Alex,

You quoted the "defining characteristic of fundamentalism is its oppositionalist mentality."

Then there must exist Fundamentalism with a Liberal Agenda as a subset.

1. Because the self-anointed "tolerant and compassionate toward outcasts" have quite an oppositional mentality to anyone who differs from them (see gays without apology piece) and they are celebrated and showcased for it!

2. And(since you brought up the two women in love) literalistic proof-identifying fundamentalist trait- or the lack of them are seen as the definitive answer (demanded in another thread) by some liberals! wow!

3. So calling others oppositional- reveals onself to be that. Unless, there is consistent graciousness and reaching out shown by one side. Hmmm, only Bob consistently fits that bill, so he can call everyone else that and it would stick, because it came from him.

"It will be interesting to see if tendencies in Adventist oppositionalism will follow this trend in seeing "secular philosophies" or "progressives" as threats akin to the usual beastly fears.

It's also interesting in Fox News' brave, new war on "secular progressives" that some Adventists seem to be parroting the "loud voice" of some traditionalist Catholicism."

Ah, so, the beast has been identified by both sides as each other. Here, I couldn't agree with you more, my friend.

So, this definition of fundamentalism as oppositional really didn't add any new insight, did it?

Just one pile of dust(humans) putting down another pile of dust. silly.

Is there really a "third way"?

Everyone talks about "reaching out", but is there really a middle ground?

Any examples of this?

Arlyn,

I think that you missed my point about the beast. It is interesting that the majority of Adventists, along with Protestantism saw Catholicism as their biggest threat until the 20th cent. But in the last 50-60 years sociologists notice a shirt in the Other threat, from the Pope to secularism.

I fear that you're reading your own frustrations into others' posts.

Feel free to go through the about 8000 comments of the Spectrum Blog and find really egregious examples of intolerant opposition. You might note in comparing Raymond to Bob, that Raymond is an undergraduate so he might be a little intemperate. I certainly was more so back in the day.

You may also notice that whatever it is in the older generation that makes them what to point their sinner-fingers at homosexuals exists much less in the next generation. Raymond is not the only one who wishes that our community leaders found more important issues about which to deploy the scarlet letter in their own minds.

Here at Spectrum we figure that our readership is big enough to read everyone with a thickish skin

Let's not mistake nice personalities for good reasoning. Herb may be the nicest guy around, but there is just no evidence that Jesus saw anyone's face when He died or that Paul got some credential in Tarsus or Jerusalem. It may feel good to think about Jesus looking at my face, but reason leads me away from embracing that sort of metaphorical overreach on something like the death of God.

I'm not sure that you see that logic in the other point. Because liberals oppose conservatives, they have an oppositionalist mentality akin to fundamentalists?

Can you define the terms on that a bit, otherwise it just sounds like the old trick of "I know you are, what am I" between liberals and conservatives, which misses the differing foundations of the debate. Expressed as in, it's all dust after all. When in fact, for some people there is a difference. Debating the sinfulness of a humans very identity --remember women, blacks, Jews have all been singled-out as sinners by Bible-toting folks.

The bottom line is: if you buy the science and their personal testimonies that it is an identity like being straight or Jewish, than you won't call homosexuals sinners.

Regarding your first point, of course people who oppose each other will oppose each other. I'm not sure what the insight is.

There is a difference between opposition and an oppositionalist mentality.

Alister McGrath uses the term to separate fundamentalists from evangelicals who broke away in the 40s and 50s to engage social change, particularly in politics and later race.

An oppositionalist mentality, as in they don't dialogue or compromise. Do you see a difference?

I was merely wondering if Adventists might see some separation among our ranks, e.g., between those fundamentalists who join the larger shift in Protestantism toward worrying more about secularism than the papal system and those who don't. And how many would be aware in situ of the changes and compromises involved.

Sorry about getting into this conversation so late but have been away for two weeks. I found the comments delicious and worth the time to read. Seems that the basic question before is, Why Did Jesus Die? Or, To whom did He offer His life? Underneath these questions, it seems, is a simpler one to ask but more difficult to answer: How human was Jesus? How was He still divine while human? I think much of modern confusion or irrelevancy regarding the point of Christianity is caused by unfortunate and conflicting theologies that miss the whole point of what is called the "great controversy." When we listen to revealed thinking about that subject, we will begin to find clear, rational, defensible answers that will answer most all other "theological" questions. Incidentally, thinking that Jesus had my name on His mind while dying is a homiletical picture that nails down the fact that Jesus died for me. That is important to me because that begins my discovery of the cost of freedom in this wonderful universe, opening the door to what kind of God is running it. When I became an Adventist, I never looked back. It has been an open door to finding answers to questions that men and women have been asking since Hesiod or before. Keep asking questions and keep trusting those Hands that were nailed to the Cross and the Heart that never looked back. Cheers, Herb

Thank you Herb Douglass for your gracious reply -- and for not being threatened.

Some general comments… Note that I’m conflating the “Why Jesus Died” post with Ron Corsons “Christ in the Crucible” post as the subjects are very very close. I hope readers are taking them together...

Perhaps the greatest distortion ascribed to so called alternate models of the Atonement is that Christ is diminished; somehow less important; maybe even “optional”. Not true: for there still rests the ideas that through Christ the world/cosmos is reconciled -- plus Paul’s idea that there is NO other name under heaven, given among men… So yes, Christ is, and must be the center.

You mentioned that there may be confusion as to the humanity/divinity of Christ. Maybe so -- but given our inherent limitations in being able to “detect” divinity, as well as deciding what is 1st death and what is 2nd (as a doctor, trust me; dead is dead) the confusion is surely shared by all.

Making matters more difficult yet, it seems the “divinity” of Christ (again, how is this measured/detected) was sporadic and intermittent. Besides, doesn’t Philippians 2 suggest Christ set His divinity aside? But then, EGW talks about His divinity “flashing through His humanity” at times. More troublesome for our theories though is the EGW suggestion that divinity “cannot die” (please correct if I quote EGW in error) -- which would suggest that “only” the humanity of Christ was killed/died/gave up His life. (Forgive me Ron C for hopelessly conflating EGW/Bible ideas -- doing it to shine a light into our limitations/problems…)

Except the entire “payment/substitution” model seems heavily reliant on the death of Christ as GOD to be “effective” -- but if God didn’t “die”, what now? (more trouble: if divinity did not die, was there a conscious entity named “Christ” watching the “human Christ” lose His life? My point it to merely show how ill-prepared we are to use some of these terms and ideas -- on which the bible is rather silent. Which was the point brought out by Ron C…)

The use of the mental image of Christ on the cross having my face in mind bothers me less than you might imagine. It’s a poetic and imaginative way (as I see it) of sharing the truth that Christ knew the profound importance of what He was doing, and it’s far reaching consequences in effecting the reconciliation Ron C was talking about. Further, it’s value rests also in underlining the personal nature of salvation. I see salvation as being much less than about ledgers and accounts being balanced but about a personal movement towards conviction and repentance and growth in another direction towards a life “in” Christ. This life then takes on new meaning as others who are also undergoing the transformation join together and reach a fuller expression of “salvation” as communities become transformed into His likeness. And so on.

When you refer to the cross in terms of being the “cost of freedom” I think you are on the right path -- though I likely understand it a bit differently. Hampering profoundly our understandings of the Cross events is the myth that crime/sin/evil “deserves” punishment; that punishment of such actually provides any kind of real “satisfaction” at all.

Consider: an evil man kidnaps, tortures, and rapes a helpless little girl, then kills her. (please read, as one example, the exquisite and extraordinary criminal files of one John Couey -- here in Florida…) Dutifully, society, seeking justice, (reading a bit prophetically into the future) gives the man a fair trial (all agree the man did it) then kills him. Can any person suggest that justice has truly been served by this punishment? (But please pause, and consider this… biblical depiction's of justice revolve around restoration to dignity; relief from oppression by restrictive social structures; recovery of a lost sense of place and belonging. When justice occurs, wrongs are righted; healing occurs; righteousness has been witnessed; the weak and vulnerable have been protected. Justice relieves afflictions; is equated with righteousness; is contrasted with wickedness; is the birthright of God’s people. Justice redeems. Justice is not done to people, justice is done for them…) For the pain and anger and horror will remain with the girls family forever. The evil man mocks us from his grave. Worst of all, in ways we faintly grasp, the little girls cries of terror echo through the cosmos forever. (just as the light from events in the cosmos from eons ago are only now reaching us, the reality of the “event” radiates onward and outward forever.)

Demonstrating how poorly we use EGW is this quote from DA in which she identifies the source of the ideology that sin “deserves” punishment -- that “justice” is accomplished by retribution. p 761 "Every sin must meet its punishment, URGED SATAN; and if God should remit the punishment of sin, He would not be a God of truth and justice." Thus the sinister claim that order and peace are maintained by implicit threat of the violence of punishment does not reflect God’s reality, but rather that of the adversary. This claim made, how shall God respond? Well, it would appear He took the charge seriously -- and chose to let it all play out. Yes, right before our eyes. Or, at least, the eyes of our forefathers -- whose witness we are somehow “stuck” with. (Can we hear an “Amen” for the faith of our Fathers?)

To understand freedom as our ability to do “as we wish” is but a diversion; a detraction from the question of why on earth anyone would ever do anything contrary to God’s plan/will for us. That condition describes slavery; and we are all slaves to sin in some way. Freedom then is about being able to comprehend the good and why it must be chosen and then the strength and will to actually act on that goodness. For freedom has far more to do with reaching the potential to which God created us -- not the abuse thereof. When we are free, we exude that which best reflects those things to which God calls us, and has created us for. Freedom does not mean our ability to explore and follow a path apart from God; rather, it enlightens the path which we follow TO God.

True freedom then, as I’m seeing it, stands contrary to any system of order by implied threats with it’s attendant punishment. Attempts to marry systems of freedom with systems based on force simply do not work; the need for force negates so called freedom. Somehow, in ways I will be pondering for eternity, that reality is what was being demonstrated -- by God Himself -- on the cross.

So lastly, I’d like to thank you for the image you share of Adventism as an open door. I’m thinking that is the same theme Spectrum seeks to capture here. For many, Adventism should be simply a label to describe those who hold beliefs X and Y and Z. Which, not surprisingly, correspond to the very beliefs that person holds! Except that the way we GOT to those beliefs was much closer to the “Open Door” Adventism you describe. So, I guess a good question would be -- Who shut the door on “Open Door Adventism”??!!

Thanks again Pastor Douglass...

Probably the best homily on the "Open Door" was given by Dr. Henry Van Dyke of the Red Brick Presbyterian Church of New York City 1903. He takes his text from John 10:9 "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture"

Dr. Van Dyke expands that thought by emphasizing that the door is open! Thus, we can enter to be healed and then we can go out to serve.

Christ is the open door, the Church can be or not be the pasture. A major point Dr. Van Dyke makes is that Christ is not divisable. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptizm. The invitation is "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy ladened.--- " If all have sinned and come short-- And if salvation is through none other than Jesus Christ. Then there can be no difference between the redeemed.

It is men who define exclusivity not God. It is Christ's faith and Christ's baptism that are accounted to me for salvation. It is by and through Him that He is Lord of all! I am glad that Dr. Douglass finds the Seventh-day Adventist Church a rich pasture. That does not mean that others have not found the same food for the soul in other communions. Tom

Tom,

Haven't seen your name lately...happy New Year, blessings and health!

Tom, I agree that the "exclusivity" is in being "in Christ" in "His Church" of one Lord, One faith and one baptism and not a "particular fellowship."

All are invited into that "exclusivity" for He stands at the door and knocks and IF any hear His Voice and open the door He will come in!

We have had to many "Neo-Great Controversy" themes in the SDA church. The "controversy" was "finished at the cross" and the prince of this earth "was/is" judged! God/Jesus freely in love vindicated Himself and thereby us in Himself. He IS just and the justifier of those believing in Jesus!

How easily we forget that everything in the NT about Christ: his life, death, and the explanation of why his death was necessary, or demanded, was written at least twenty or more years afterward.

That is why there are such confusing and contradictory passages about these events. Even Paul, the earliest and primary expositor on Christ's life and death, never knew Jesus, as did none of the NT writers. They wrote ABOUT him, but never actually knew him personally.

Yesterday, our pastor told a story about two theoretical versions of Abraham Lincoln: one was a professor who had spent his life studying and writing about Lincoln, an expert on him; the other was a little girl who lived next door and knew him as he spoke to her each morning or told her a little story before he left for work. The question: who knew Lincoln best? The little girl who actually knew him, or the man who knew all about him from his written works?

None of us knows ANYTHING about Jesus except as seen and read through the writings of the NT; and none of the writers ever saw or knew him personally; which should explain why the conflation about his divinity/humanity and much more.

In many respects, the NT is no different from the Old: it was first told orally and repeated many times and eventually was written. The NT writers record that the disciples and followers of Jesus did not understand him nor his mission. They also accounted that Jesus, even before his death, seemed to use divine powers, as well as apparently human. When was it made explicitly a Christian doctrine that Jesus was both human and divine? One can arrive at either conclusion from the evidence that has been written.

While the cross is prominently displayed in church buildings, how does one display the Resurrection, and how often is it shown in churches? His death was meaningless and only one of many crucifixions occurring during that time. It was only the belief in his resurrection that was the reason for the formation of the Christian church. And yet, much more ink and trees have been felled to pontificate on his death and meaning. No one simple, undisputed reason can be found in Scripture. Select your particular text to emphasize your position.

Elaine

Are you asking for a Scriptural reason for cutting down trees?
Neither Christmas nor Easter give us proper Christian cause. The Roman Catholic Church has a cross with a dead or dying Jesus. The Protestant Churches have an empty cross--an emphasis upon a finished work that culminated in the Resurrection, Ascention, and Installation at the right hand of the throne of God.

Samuel Zwemer wrote a book in Cario in 1928 entitled the Glory of the Empty Tomb as the third in a trilogy of the Glory of the Manger and the Glory of the Cross.

If we are honest with ourselves, we need all three to heal the wounded soul.

Some many see the Scripture as clever stories, other see the Scriptures as a statement of the Problem and an exposition of the solution. I fall into the latter group.

Recently a for profit hospital chain purchased St. Joseph Hospital in Augusta. The first thing they did was change the name to Trinity, the second was to remove all of the crucifixes from the patient rooms and other public places, and the third thing they did was cut everyones' salary and fringe benefits.

Today everything is the bottom-line! Well in theology, the bottom-line is Jesus Christ is Lord and our soon coming Savior. Tom

An addendum to my January comments.

Trinity Hospital reversed its policy. The Crucifixes rremain.

So do the salary cuts. Tom

Herb

I'm very late in my comments. I found your presentation warm, true to Scripture, and redemptive in every sense. Thank you. Tom