And Ryrie covers that under OBJECT, not CONTENT. It’s his words and definition you are arguing with, not Gianello or me.
Mr. Gianello never does actually give a good description of what he thinks the unchanging "CONTENT" of Christianity is supposed to be
That was not his purpose.
Again, your argument is with Ryrie’s very poor formulation in order to try to define a concept that is foreign to the Bible and normal systematic theology.
I learned a long time ago not to deal with religious ranters who focus on some other guy's obscure "ism."
Unfortunately, this obscure "ism" is like a theological Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees – rational folks are horrified that they will not die.
IMO, this particular "ism" takes our eyes off God's command to preach the Gospel to all men, and instead focuses our attention on fear, insecurity and useless speculation.
Who benefits by Christians arguing the end times? Who benefits by Christians saying faith in Christ is not a necessity today for all men everywhere?
How could it not be his purpose -- the guy spends a crapload of capital letters telling us about how Ryrie is so amazingly wrong about CONTENT ... without telling us what the "CONTENT" really is?
What a monumental waste of time.