Skip to main content
At the risk of getting him in trouble, I have a list of 5:

Top 5 'Collins-isms' Of The Past 3 Weeks (possible paraphrases)

5. "I hear a lot of sneezers and coughers in here. Make note of the sneezers and coughers, so that when we all fall ill with various afflictions, we can beat them to death."

4. "You are used to seeing David as a Jesus figure. The message of the Bible is that Jesus is a David figure." (Lesson: Respect the original OT context)

3. "If you read Psalm 24 and say, 'How great is it, that Jesus kept the Law in my place?' I will beat you, because that's not what it's saying." (Lesson: We should strive for holiness)

2. "This is a love song, a poem. Not a particularly good one, mind you, but some of you were no doubt conceived with a song like this playing in the background."

1. "I'm hearing what you are saying, and it's horrible." (response to a question)

Added Bonus: In response to a "pastoral question" regarding what Collins would do with a congregation moving too quickly from the original context and intent of the Old Testament to seeing Christ, in the midst of a nuanced and careful answer, he was interrupted by a student, who said, "I'll tell you what he'd do: he'd just yell at them." [Raucous laughter] And without missing a beat, Collins added: "Now he's got it."

Comments

I can imagine Dr. Collins's eyes were twinkling as he said "Now he's got it."

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un