Re: [asa] Reply to Glenn

I had posted: I quote Nat Hawthorne: "So long as an
> unlettered soul can attain to saving grace, there would seem to be no
> deadly error in holding theological libraries to be accumulations of,
for
> the most part, stupendous impertinence."
..............................
George responded:

"Hawthorne's statement is a vast oversimplification to the point of
simply
being false."

I think you missed the qualifications, George. "seem to be no deadly
error" is one; "for the most part" is another. I think Nat's statement is
right on, myself.

George: "There would be some truth if it were amended to "So long as an
unlettered soul can attain to saving grace _and there is noinfluences in
the
world tending to mislead such souls_ ..."

I don't see this qualification as adding anything. What is the value of a
vast library, for example, of sermons justifying slavery? Or arguing
interminably about the validity of the YEC view.

George again: "Secondly, this claim assumes that there is no value at all
in understanding what we believe beyond what an "unlettered soul" is
capable of. I.e., as
far as religion is concerned we ought to blow our brains out. There is
no
warrant at all for this in scripture. We are to love God with all our
heart, soul, MIND & strength. A childlike faith need not be a childish
faith."

I don't see the statement saying that at all. Or even assuming it.

But we can agree to disagree on this; it is hardly a primary issue.

jb
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 17 13:11:58 2006