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
It doesn't matter how many times you re-post the same unaccredited comment, it still makes no sense. Why not explain what you really mean to say? For example:
What do you mean by "the BA philosophy"?
What is that exactly in your thinking?
What exactly do you think is hollow or incomplete about using the term "born again" to describe our new birth in Jesus Christ?
How is the term born again an "adverse reaction" to Presbyterianism? Seeing as they have no problem with describing the regeneration of the soul come to faith in Jesus Chris, how is simply using that term in any way a rebellion against Calvinism?
Why do you assume Presbyterians would hold Christians who refer to themselves as born again would invoke a "damnable heretic" condemnation? What documentation from authorized sources describe them as such?
You say a "clear" problem with born again Christians is that they have no balance. Explain what in your eyes constitutes "balance".
Finally, where do you get the idea that born again believers - which if you were truly a Christian you would have no problem identifying with - "veer to the laugh-sing-dance and ignore oblivion model"? Do you actually have any idea what the original author of that silly diatribe meant by such a statement or do you just like how it sounded and used it to sling mud?