Not exact matches
Entry into this relationship
of grace and
faith involves the imitation
of Christ, but this does not
mean an imitation
of the individual pattern
of life which was required
of him by his unique vocation; it
means the imitation
of his
total commitment to God, his obedience to God's will, and his attitude
of unswerving love for others which was the fruit
of his openness to God.
John Calvin managed to invert the lesson
of the passage almost entirely: The young ruler, he claimed, had asked an inept question, supposing that one could secure eternal life through works, and thus Christ's metaphor was
meant as an illustration
of the impossibility
of anyone fulfilling the requirements
of the law, and
of the need therefore for a
total reliance upon
faith.
He surely can not seriously imagine that men
of similar intellectual caliber to his own have not asked the same searching fundamental questions about life and its
meaning which he himself asks, and yet have come to the conclusion that the Christian
Faith is an indispensable part
of total truth.
If the
total coincidence
of transcendence and immanence is vision, and not structure
of existence, then the traditional styles
of faith and practices
of faith may still have possible
meaning, even though they are seen to be penultimate; and then the radical theologian can be understood as standing in a spectrum
of theological positions and not in isolation.
Sometimes I wonder if it would be easier (or maybe I
mean, simpler, or CLEARER) to just navigate a
total walking away from
faith, instead
of a very specific changing
of faith and remaining in
faith, but having a very, very significant shift in what you believe and how you live it out, because family and friends will carry on like nothing's changed, but EVERYTHING has changed, even within
faith.