Skip to main content
Follow Up Concerning Invincible Ignorance and "Inclusivism": One of the most serious charges against either Rome or Orthodoxy is that it is indifferent toward Jesus as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." That perhaps articulating some idea that God is merciful to the ignorant who never hear of Jesus Christ. (Granted, this outcome grows more unlikely by the day, praise God.) On the one hand, "all paths lead to God" is expressly false, based on the verse I quoted above. But if all truth in the universe finds its source and summit in Jesus Christ, then whatever a person happens to be doing at any given time may be an occasion to find truth which belongs to Him. In that sense, all paths lead to God because nothing good or true or lovely could be so without God. Frankly, Acts 17 makes very little sense within a Calvinist way of looking at salvation/conversion, specifically this verse: "that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him." What do we call all the occasions immediately prior to someone responding in faith to Jesus Christ? Why are they seeking? Aren't they dead? Calvinists have no category for an as-yet-saved person "in transit," or a good explanation for why they are in transit. I suppose after the fact, you could say they were decretally elect in the mind of God from all eternity anyway, but I don't know how in Heaven you know that, nor how you know that you and your fellows know you're going to make it to the end. Are you absolutely sure you want to say that God has to regenerate a person first? Does this fit with how things normally go? [Ephesians 2:5, idiot.--ed.] OK, that is a sticky one.


But come, let us reason together on another matter. I heard a pastor describe a believer's lament this way: "I'm the one who believes, even though that non-Christian over there is way better than me." All together now: "to the praise of His glorious grace." But, you must fearfully consider, "Perhaps I have the dead faith James decries." Furthermore, you dummy, GO TALK TO that person! It's probably the easiest harvest in the history of Christianity. Anyway, this is what Catholics were talking about with agape at the Council of Trent: "Faith Alone" could reduce to mere assent without anyone noticing, because we Protestants don't talk about dead faith. To us, it's a ridiculous contradiction. BUT MAYBE IT SHOULDN'T BE. Of course, works do flow from faith, in a sense. But what kind of faith? To a Catholic, works are not only the fruit of (living) faith, agape is their animating power. Yes, I'm a little bothered by such a narrow, sterile definition of "faith" as intellectual assent in the Catholic Church; yes, I understand how the sacramental system could seem fearful and mechanistic to a Protestant. But I also know that the signs Christ uses to teach his people light the loving heart up like a Christmas tree. If there are 7 of them, what do I care? It's all love to me. In short, this is an ecclesial discussion; don't blame me if I return, abandoning my protest for lack of evidence. Our communities were not formed with the intent of permanence. Dare I say, they were not formed with the intent of schism.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

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...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...