My inherent tension: I find myself a member of a really self-reflective, open-ended, open-minded spirituality class. As one discusses the purpose of human existence as a Christian, one is confronted with the boldness (some might say arrogance) of claiming One and Only Truth. I should say that I do so with not a little compassion for those who seek and have not yet found. Yet, I find myself guilty of that very thing, and joyously so. Praise be to the LORD Almighty, the true and only God!
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments