I don't typically watch Bill O'Reilly. (I don't typically watch much of anything not having cable television!) However, I made an exception last night from my hotel room because I wanted to hear how O'Reilly handled the topic of the after life."I've always felt there is a battle between good and evil and if there is a heaven you have to earn your way in through your actions on Earth." Bill O’Reilly / Roman Catholic (true to his Catholicism)
“I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.” Michael Bloomberg / Reformed Jew (true to his Judaism)“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Apostle Paul / Follower of Christ (true to the Scriptures)
After putting forth a doctrine of salvation by works, O'Reilly went on to express most ardently that he hopes that justice will prevail at the final judgment. O'Reilly couldn't have been more clear. Bill O'Reilly does not need God's mercy and grace. He, also, hopes others will receive the justice they deserve. (I prayed for this lost soul at various times throughout the day. Many verses came to mind, especially that Christ didn't come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.) Bill O'Reilly is self-righteous and, therefore, on his way to hell.*
I heard the Bloomberg quote on CNBC while driving home. Had I not heard his quote I would not have blogged on this matter.
Bloomberg is a blasphemer. The difference between him and O'Reilly is one of degree. Bloomberg has tried to convince himself (and others) that he has already earned heaven whereas O'Reilly, at best, tries to project that he can and hopefully will merit heaven. That's a distinction without a relevant difference in the grand scheme of things.
I guess it's now time to pray for Michael Bloomberg.
*If we cannot pronounce God's curses based upon His word, then we forgo the right to pronounce God's blessings. When O'Reilly professes that he is saved by God's grace alone, then it can be said that he is on his way to Heaven. It is not biblical to say one can be saved now while they clearly profess that they are trusting in self-merit alone.
21 comments:
Bloomberg is not a blasphemer. He is ignorant and doesn't know scripture. A blasphemer is someone who knows better but speaks against. O'Reilly is ignorant of scripture and has learned error due to Catholicism. If the Pope believes in substitutionary atonement due to Christ on the Cross he will go to heaven even if he teaches error. You seem to believe that only hypercalvinists will go to heaven. Will John Wesley go to hell? Wise up.
A blasphemer is "one who speaks impiously or irreverently of (God or sacred things)." If you don't find Bloomberg's quote irreverent then that only speaks to your own spiritual condition I'm afraid. You made the same misguided remarks regarding Mormonism and Romney.
Regarding your O'Reilly observatoin, people don't need to be taught salvation by works. They are born believing that way. Accordingly, O'Reilly's ignorance, as you would call it, is due to his sin of self-righteousness. It's not "error" due to Catholicism. Rather, it's sin that comports nicely with Romanism.
If the pope believes the gospel then he should expose Romanism. At best the popes are saved and living in dreadful disobedience, denying the Lord that bought them.
No, I believe Wesley is in Heaven and you can find nothing on this blog that would indicate I think otherwise.
Finally, in all your posts - those that I have pusblished and the more wicked ones I haven't, you have yet to distinguish Calvinism from "Hyper-Calvinism." All you've indicated in all your bloviating is that you hate the gospel of grace and enjoy making bald assertions (without argumentation).
Bloomberg is not a blasphemer.
Assertion w/o defense
He is ignorant and doesn't know scripture.
Maybe
A blasphemer is someone who knows better but speaks against.
False
O'Reilly is ignorant of scripture and has learned error due to Catholicism.
Maybe but so what?
If the Pope believes in substitutionary atonement due to Christ on the Cross he will go to heaven even if he teaches error.
False. I can believe in the *doctrine* of substitutionary atonement and reject the Savior's atonement for me. We have no reason that the Popes believe in a doctrine they vehemently deny.
I know who is posting these things and I do not believe he is a Christian.
This person who believes that Bloomberg is not a blasphemous and profane man believes that someone can believe the gospel savingly while spending their entire life teaching another gospel. Go figure...
Jon,
This person is just an angry person who has shown himself on another thread to hate Calvinism while at the same time lamenting that Calvinists are too exclusive. Someone pointed out the hypocritical irony of his platform. Maybe you?
Hi Ron, I enjoy you blog and wish to share some of the information with others. Are you still in the ministry and associated with the OPC? If so where? I am an OPC member in Oregon; our pastor was at GA all week. Thanks, Doug
Thanks for stopping by. No, I was ordained a ruling elder in the OPC but my membership is with the PCA.
Both those guys obviously need the law poured on them.
And that would hopefully cut them off at the knees.
Then…and only then…might the gospel mean anything to them.
Thank you for posting again over at gb.
Sure thing.
What I found most entertaining is that many of his arguments would posit something true and uncontroversial followed by a conclusion that had nothing to do with the original assertion. John Frame discusses this sort of thing in DKG.
James
James,
Yes I agree.
Now watch Steve interpret each and every assent as something other than "any given assent."
Hah, I never thought of that. Depending how desperate he is... he just might.:,)
Has it ever occurred to you that Clarkians just ain't that sharp?
I am sure you recognize by now then when Sean what's his name is cornered into defending what his position implies he avoids the matter altogether and just asserts his premises.
Not understanding theology or philosophy really well is not the end of the world. Some folks are just limited by the way
God made them. What I find strange though is that Sean Gerety is about as incompetent as one can possibly get. In and of itself that would not be so bad if he was not such a loud mouth. The problem is he is a loud mouth and has no clue about anything he talks about. Now he is saying that repentance must precede faith. He is as clueless as they come. This idea that we choose our beliefs must be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard him say and that says a lot!
Scripturalism? That explains it. It denies itself on its own terms. It's a cult. Guys hang out with Sean knowing that Sean has an heretical Christology. Can you believe it? The glue is bitterness. They huddle together because they have deep rooted issues. Their fellowship is rebellion. They despise the institutional church and are angry about who knows what. I can almost guarantee that their church brethren see them as big, big problems. Given their epistemology these guys don't even know they exist yet somehow they "know" the truth! They're outsiders and THAT is their only comfort in life and death. I have to believe their family situations are a walking testimony to their beliefs. Angry and chaotic.
Scripturalists aren't taken seriously by anyone I know. Their arguments are typically riddled with fallacies and on most issues they don't have even a fragile handle on the discussion at hand, but that never stops them from bloviating. Seems a hopeless case, humanly speaking. For extensive interaction with them, check out Triablogue.
Again, the genius Gerety writes: "Weird. I can’t think of even one Reformed confession that states that faith must be accompanied by gratitude in order to be justified. That’s not to say that those who are justified won’t be grateful, but it is hardly a precondition to justification."
This guy confuses a "precondition" with a "necessary condition." What a joke! LOL
Not surprising. As I said, nobody takes these guys seriously. As for an 80 IQ, that's on the dull side. It would explain some things but nothing spiritual blindness wouldn't explain just as well. I'm more inclined to believe he's just stubborn rather than deficient. What's frightening though is that God has seen fit to allow this man to parade his lack understanding and hatred for the truth in a public way. I probably don't fear for his soul enough.
Maybe I should republish this...
http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-elaboration-on-conditions.html
Post a Comment