WRONG!
Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
If you mean ignoring scholarship as a requirement for salvation is belittling scholarship, well sorry then you must accept it. God does not require a cap and gown for entry into heaven.
the key word is "being like him" as not all who say "lord, lord" will be saved.
Ta-da!
WRONG!
So tell me, what good works did this one do?
Luk 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
your philosophy is incomplete, it takes one part of the message of God and over-amplifies it -- as a reaction to the over-amplification of the OPC-types human reasoning.
Both extremes are wrong and by deviating further and further from God's word, the BAers end up with "burning in the bosom" arguments to contradict the Calvinist logic.
f you mean ignoring scholarship as a requirement for salvation is belittling scholarship, well sorry then you must accept it. God does not require a cap and gown for entry into heaven.
No, that is the other extreme -- the Calvinist extreme that I pointed out. As I said, the BA version is the adverse reaction to the extremes of Calvinism, which, as you correctly point out is wrong as God does not require a cap and gown for entry into heaven
However, the position taken by the BAs is also wrong -- for the opposite reason. There is to be a balance, my friend, not this wild swinging from side to side
As GK Chesterton expressed so well in his Orthodoxy
"Last and most important, it is exactly this which explains what is so inexplicable to all the modern critics of the history of Christianity. I mean the monstrous wars about small points of theology, the earthquakes of emotion about a gesture or a word. It was only a matter of an inch; but an inch is everything when you are balancing. The Church could not afford to swerve a hair's breadth on some things if she was to continue her great and daring experiment of the irregular equilibrium. Once let one idea become less powerful and some other idea would become too powerful. It was no flock of sheep the Christian shepherd was leading, but a herd of bulls and tigers, of terrible ideals and devouring doctrines, each one of them strong enough to turn to a false religion and lay waste the world. Remember that the Church went in specifically for dangerous ideas; she was a lion tamer. The idea of birth through a Holy Spirit, of the death of a divine being, of the forgiveness of sins, or the fulfilment of prophecies, are ideas which, any one can see, need but a touch to turn them into something blasphemous or ferocious. The smallest link was let drop by the artificers of the Mediterranean, and the lion of ancestral pessimism burst his chain in the forgotten forests of the north. Of these theological equalisations I have to speak afterwards. Here it is enough to notice that if some small mistake were made in doctrine, huge blunders might be made in human happiness. A sentence phrased wrong about the nature of symbolism would have broken all the best statues in Europe. A slip in the definitions might stop all the dances; might wither all the Christmas trees or break all the Easter eggs. Doctrines had to be defined within strict limits, even in order that man might enjoy general human liberties. The Church had to be careful, if only that the world might be careless.
"This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic. The Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one idea, like a vulgar fanaticism. She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles. She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly. The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly. The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect."
nice. however, it still is ignoring the fact that the BA philosophy is hollow due to its incompleteness. The BAers, as an adverse reaction to Presbyterianism (which is why the Presbyterians call you damnable heretics) went to the other extreme from them In both cases, the virtues, separated from each other went crazy and over-extended. That is the clear problem with the BAers — there is no balance and it just veers to the laugh-sing-dance and ignore oblivion model
"This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy.as he pointed out "It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own." -- and today's flavor is BA. in the 1800s it was Calvinism, puritanism even, but now it veers to the other extremeIt was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic.
The Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one idea, like a vulgar fanaticism.
She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles.
She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly.
The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly.
The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination.
It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic.
It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own.
It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob.
To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands.
To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame.
But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure;
and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect."
These are Jesus' own words -- HE provides the grace of salvation, it was HIS sacrifice that saves us, we cannot save ourselves. And HE has told us what we need to do, not just "Lord, Lord", but the above
Looks like the wisdom of men to me.
Not really — did you read it? it gives a very good description of the problem that is the BAers v/s the Calvinists.
For example It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. -- the BA philosophy is today's "age", just like Arianism, Gnosticism, Calvinism, etc. had their "age". It's easy to fall for this flavor of the decade or century
But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure;
The extremes are easy to sink in to and seem correct for those times, but that is the problem, they are of those times only. The BA philosophy, as I said, has some good, but the problem is that it is so curtailed and cut short of the entire 'good' that is the Word of God, that it is hollow and alone, like tantric dancers fighting away the sense of the impending by ignoring it utterly in a trance
These are the Lord's very own words His very own statements, exhortations, commands.
this is not the philosophy or wisdom of men, this what God Himself has commanded.
So then why did the thief even speak? And the scriptures do not indicate the thief was baptized nor that he ate or drank anything while hanging mext to Jesus.
HE provides the grace of salvation, it was HIS sacrifice that saves us, we cannot save ourselves
Absolutely true. The only "unless" in the list you gave was item 2.
Luk 23:41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
Luk 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom
Yes I read it, but it is still the wisdom of men. Are you asserting it is the wisdom(word) of God?
For example It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. -- the BA philosophy is today's "age", just like Arianism, Gnosticism, Calvinism, etc. had their "age". It's easy to fall for this flavor of the decade or century
But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure;
The extremes are easy to sink in to and seem correct for those times, but that is the problem, they are of those times only. The BA philosophy, as I said, has some good, but the problem is that it is so curtailed and cut short of the entire 'good' that is the Word of God, that it is hollow and alone, like tantric dancers fighting away the sense of the impending by ignoring it utterly in a trance
The wisdom of God is here
Mk 16:16, Lk 13:3, Jn 6:54, Matt 23:13 are Jesus's own words telling us that
- He who believes
- and is baptized will be saved.
- [U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish
- [H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day
- he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved
These are the Lord's very own words His very own statements, exhortations, commands.
this is not the philosophy or wisdom of men, this what God Himself has commanded.
cronos: I'm talking about the entire BA philosophy which expunges and belittles scholarship -- as an adverse reaction to Calvinism's human logic reducto
andrew: f you mean ignoring scholarship as a requirement for salvation is belittling scholarship, well sorry then you must accept it. God does not require a cap and gown for entry into heaven.
That is the other extreme -- the Calvinist extreme that I pointed out. As I said, the BA version is the adverse reaction to the extremes of Calvinism, which, as you correctly point out is wrong as God does not require a cap and gown for entry into heaven
However, the position taken by the BAs is also wrong -- for the opposite reason. There is to be a balance, my friend, not this wild swinging from side to side remember God Himself gave a clear picture in the Gospels in Mk 16:16, Lk 13:3, Jn 6:54, Matt 23:13 which are Jesus's own words telling us that
These are the Lord's very own words His very own statements, exhortations, commands.
this is not the philosophy or wisdom of men, this what God Himself has commanded.
These are not the words of man, not even the inspired words of Paul or the Apostles, but these are the direct, crystal-clear words from GOD HIMSELF.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.