5. I'd say the Incarnation proves God is pretty "man-centered," but that's just me.
4. You could just say, "I don't believe you are saved, and thus, I accord your Scriptural arguments no consideration." It would save me time.
3. The logical consequence of having a makeshift "magisterium of scholarship" is being at the mercy of majority scholarly opinion, as in the opinion that John 8:1-8 isn't really in the Bible, or Mark 16:9-20. Put this in your, "Conservative Protestantism is liberal Protestantism waiting to happen" file.
2. I could have gone to worship with the Lutherans (or the soon to be formed Reformed) or to a Catholic Mass, in 15-something. What I can't get you to understand, Reformed Biblicist Guy, is exactly the power of this question: What makes you right, and the papist wrong? It does no good to point back from today to Calvin or whomever, because in that time, all options are live. The question of authority is ultimately, the only one that matters.
1. If the Church hierarchy is corrupt, the question turns to revelation. If something is supernaturally revealed, any number of grievous failures to abide by its dictates do not invalidate it. This is what so many fail to realize: The (Protestant) Reformation inaugurated a new method of ascertaining and receiving revelation. That's why the claim that nothing really changed from the early Church in the work of the "Reformers" is untenable. The deposit of faith and the manner of knowing it would not change, no matter what moral turpitude ensued. So, why the new doctrine? If the new contentions are correct, one is placed in a tenuous position regarding earlier truths articulated by the older means. I feel like Devin Rose has already said this. Buy his books! I'm sure they are great, if I ever get around to reading them.
4. You could just say, "I don't believe you are saved, and thus, I accord your Scriptural arguments no consideration." It would save me time.
3. The logical consequence of having a makeshift "magisterium of scholarship" is being at the mercy of majority scholarly opinion, as in the opinion that John 8:1-8 isn't really in the Bible, or Mark 16:9-20. Put this in your, "Conservative Protestantism is liberal Protestantism waiting to happen" file.
2. I could have gone to worship with the Lutherans (or the soon to be formed Reformed) or to a Catholic Mass, in 15-something. What I can't get you to understand, Reformed Biblicist Guy, is exactly the power of this question: What makes you right, and the papist wrong? It does no good to point back from today to Calvin or whomever, because in that time, all options are live. The question of authority is ultimately, the only one that matters.
1. If the Church hierarchy is corrupt, the question turns to revelation. If something is supernaturally revealed, any number of grievous failures to abide by its dictates do not invalidate it. This is what so many fail to realize: The (Protestant) Reformation inaugurated a new method of ascertaining and receiving revelation. That's why the claim that nothing really changed from the early Church in the work of the "Reformers" is untenable. The deposit of faith and the manner of knowing it would not change, no matter what moral turpitude ensued. So, why the new doctrine? If the new contentions are correct, one is placed in a tenuous position regarding earlier truths articulated by the older means. I feel like Devin Rose has already said this. Buy his books! I'm sure they are great, if I ever get around to reading them.
Comments