The suggestion that one can have a direct relationship with God tends to annoy those in power of various forms who might prefer to mediate that authority.

Others are less thrilled of the threat of eternal concequences for their actions.

I like the salvation by grace bit.

> The suggestion that one can have a direct relationship with God tends to annoy those in power

Weird because you can have a direct relationship with God is a very popular outspoken opinion among those in power and also something most Americans are taught at a young age, seems strange to call one of the most popular religious opinions "radical".

History is full of examples, IE the Protestant Reformation, when the Catholic church was insisting that the only way to know God was through a priest, and reformers, who insisted that one could know God without a human authority intervening.

> The suggestion that one can have a direct relationship with God tends to annoy those in power of various forms who might prefer to mediate that authority.

Genuinely, have you read the bible? Because this is not message of it at all.

I have. It's not the only suggestion that is considered controversial or radical but one that I thought made for a clear answer.

What the main messages are is a different question which has been a topic of debate for a while now.

Bible has tons of messaging about literally obeying authorities unless special circumstances. It does not promotes annoyance toward those in power nor treats it as a virtue.

That's true but let me ask you, why then was Christ crucified? The Bible says to obey all authorities except in spiritual matters over which it (the Bible) claims they have no authority.

1. Direct relationship with God as noted by another comment 2. Rules for treatment of slaves at a time when slaves had no rights anywhere 3. Paul’s writings on women learning which sound backwards today would have been radical at the time

Just to name a few.