There's something I need to say. I know what it's like to get some theologically inclined fellows in a room who like to get provincial about doctrine. I really don't know who started the game of exegetical "Can You Top This?" but someone decided that Jesus was not going to return. I know how it starts: you want to take the time texts seriously, and you don't want to be premillenial. And then all of a sudden, you're embracing a stance that may place you outside the faith. I would encourage anyone who's embraced "realized eschatology" to give it up.
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