Skip to main content
I hereby apologize if any of the previous lacks in the winsome manner for which I am reputed. [You've never been mistaken for winsome.--ed.] Just work with me here, OK? I do approach these questions with an intensity for which I surely am reputed. Anyway, I would like to say that I think Mr. Timothy Butler will a great PCA pastor, who will serve his people with love, honor, and distinction. Be nice to the FV hippies among you, Timothy. True, they may be nothing more than papist spies, but I promise, the first few waves at least, I had nothing to do with. If you serve there near your home, you must get to know Father Kevin Schroeder [shrayder] as long as he's there. Hilarious. He's our kind of papist, Comrade. [All papists are your kind of papist.--ed.] Not true; just the good ones. [Good with respect to what?--ed.] My editor is Captain Jack? What? That would be awesome. [If I was Captain Jack, you might actually listen to me.--ed.] Not likely! Speaking of things I learned from Captain Jack, obviously this guy hasn't heard of the "Church-state nexus." Quite frankly though, I'm just not comfortable telling God he's a barbarian. Like if He is real, he'll just sulk away, shamed by my superior moral rectitude! But behind that whole line of reasoning is the opinion that God isn't real. Like the whole religion thing is man-made, and its benefits are marginal at best. I certainly can see that opinion, though obviously, I don't share it. I hope this is tongue-in-cheek, but in any case, it's funny. Not that imperialism is funny, but gee, it's still fun to tell progressives to chill out sometimes. I like Thomas the Tank Engine (and that's what it's about, for those too lazy to click the link). I admit, I was a teenager when I saw "Shining-Time Station" which contained the Thomas stories. British people telling stories is often humorous, and almost always charming. I say that because I'm an idiot American, and we think accents are funny. Is anyone else stunned that VeggieTales hasn't been sued for all they're worth for cultural insensitivity? The humor of the show is based upon foreign accents and mild stereotypes. Not that I'm complaining, because it's funny, but I figured the nattering nabobs of no-truthism (Gracias, Nixon) would have their undergarments all in a bunch over that.
What is this post about? "Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up...": Timothy Butler, I love you, my brother, though you of course are wrong about everything [grin] and I take back anything and everything that may have been ungracious in our ongoing dialogue. If there is something specific, just let me know, and we can talk it over. Ditto, Anne Robinson, and I add that I love scads of Reformed people to the uttermost (so far as I am able, anyway) and you are no exception. My dear Jamie, ditto for you as well. You are like another conscience to me, and I only wish I'd known you sooner, though we will do our best to make up the time, won't we? This blog as been about the dogged pursuit of truth from its inception, and thus, of Christ. And yet with humor and a certain boldness. If it errs in that path in various ways, it is the sin of your humble servant. Lord, have mercy, and forgive me, dear friends and brethren.

Comments

My brother, I love you, too. No worries, I know you are warm and winsome in intent, even when you bash St. John of Geneva. Hey, I know you mean to be warm and winsome even when you promote socialist presidential candidates. If I've come across ungracious, I ask your forgiveness as well.

As to FV folk. Well, they are my brothers in Christ, so I'll be kind to them, never fear. I still think FV is dangerous for one's theological health, however. Hopefully most folks will stay within the bounds of the Missouri Presbytery report on the FV.

I do appreciate your kind words about me. If I can serve effectively, it will certainly be God's doing alone.
Unknown said…
JK! There's no need for an apology, but this a beautiful one to be sure. In return, know that I'm sorry for being so frustrating at times (I know I often am). And much love to you as well.

P.S. I responded to this earlier but evidently it didn't go through. Just fyi, but I blame Google.

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