Skip to main content
Happy All Saints Day! I can remember All Saints back at Christ Our King. Ol' TT always had some story of some old person who did something crazy. I wish Pastor LeCroy luck in getting the Catholic out of that congregation.

And that reminds me to say, lest I be accused of sounding angry and self-impressed, how much I relished my time in that place, and in the PCA, until I made it Home. There are scads of wonderful people all over the place, and, well, if God knocks on your heart in that special way...don't say I didn't warn you. I didn't want to leave. That's a promise.

I will readily admit that I have a low tolerance for BS and lies. And Reformed theology, specifically with respect to the question, "Why are we not Catholic?" is a house of cards. More like a house of poo. I also openly admit that I like to annoy people. I like to say things in such a way that gets you mad, and looking for answers. It's time somebody did.

Anyone who actually knows me will find me personally engaging, slow to speak, and quick to listen. My writer persona is me, but not entirely. If that bothers you, I suggest your problem is with the little twinge of conscience inside, in terms of the Catholic Church.

Because to this day, I wouldn't give back all those years, the laughs, the truth. True as I'm sitting here, I left family there. Closer than blood. So don't you dare--if I may be bold--tell me I've got it out for people. I did what I had to do. And if I now use the gifts I've been given to throw that same light on the path that leads here, what's that to you? This is about Jesus Christ. That's who all of this is for. The question is, are you willing to die for those particulars where we differ? I am. If you're not, let me again frankly suggest that you don't take Jesus as seriously as you ought.

The time for Kumbaya and theological appreciation is over. It now obscures the Truth we need to find. If you dissent from Catholic teaching, fine. I hope the reason is good. All I mean to say is that all the ones I heard before this were crap. 89.9% of them were refuted in about 2 hours. I'm sorry if I need a reason to believe something. Oh, the horror of it all!

Comments

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