Hello to the three people who read this blog. I can't figure out what I'll write for my second Religious Studies paper. Those smart-alecs out there who said, "Jesus?" are positively brilliant. We know that part. But which aspects of Him shall I write about? I was thinking of sheep. Sheep are mean, and gross. Not to mention stupid. And that context sheds a different light on John 10. People have this mental image maybe of these cute, happy, well-mannered sheep. Oh, no friends. You'd have to say it's an apt discription of Jesus' followers, if A) you know anything about the apostles, and B) If you're a Christian, and you know yourself.
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
Comments