Skip to main content
5 Random, Disconnected Thoughts For Today

5. The reason TD Jakes gets invited to prominent evangelical conferences is that there's no definitive final authority for doctrine beyond the self, AND they may be a teensy bit racist. Just sayin.'

4. I will not vote for any of the Republicans that happen to have an 'r' in his last name.

3. Nor will I vote for a Mormon. My Trinitarianism is firm.

2. That's right, the evangelical insistence on creedalism is entirely arbitary, though admirable, and it takes a pretty recalcitrant heretic/fundie for anyone to notice the problem. Keith Mathison already pointed out the problem, even if he refuses to see it.

1. I am a good time!!!

Comments

Jamie Stober said…
So you would vote for an evil Trinitarian (hypothetical)? Would a vote for a Mormon constitute a lack of firmness in Trinitarianism? My vote for Romney should that situation in which he is the lesser of two evils arises (Romney does not have my vote in the Republican primary for policy reasons) would in no way be an endorsement of his heretical theology. I would make that clear. If he was the Republican nominee and I met the dude, my cut-through-the-crap response would be something like, "You might have my vote in this commonwealth, but I could not vote for you for dogcatcher in the Kingdom of God. Please, sir, I beseech you by all the mercies of God, embrace Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, Him only be praised, world without end, Amen." If Romney wins the Republican nomination, it is my prayer that Christians who endorse him will make this clear. I think it would be a good moment if they did. It would express coherence in how Christians deal with politicians of other religions in a pluralistic democracy and proclaim the foundational importance of the Triune God for authentic Christian faith. I fear the response you are proposing would actually result in greater confusion about why Mormonism is objectionable, and the opportunity to clarify and magnify the importance of the Most Blessed Trinity might actually be missed. Mormons are generally good citizens and upholders of virtue. We should recognize this. Mormonism is assuredly a grave Christian heresy, but if we refuse to recognize their contributions in the civil sphere, cultural anti-Mormonism (a mostly visceral prejudice against an historically mistrusted and mistreated religious minority with some goofy practices and a controversial history) rather than a stout defense of the Christian faith will be the message the American people receive from socially conservative orthodox Christians. And nothing will say that we reject Mormons as our neighbors more emphatically than a refusal to vote for one in light of the alternative. Do keep in mind that the Democratic negatives on Mormons are higher than the Republican negatives, and we know why.
Jason said…
For all we know, Romney is himself exceedingly virtuous and wise. But his religion as taught poses an undeniable threat to the Church of Christ. Its infiltration through the Frankenstein monster that is evangelicalism is already under way. Unless the content of our faith reduces to virtue-ethics, we cannot allow this. Its chief danger is that it claims, and aspires, to be Christian, not that it fails. What will mainstream the Christological falsehood of it faster than a President who believes 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