I'll be honest: Origen's commentary on Romans has had a huge impact on my decision to become Catholic, but in ways I did not expect. It was actually the soteriological continuity (in a sacramental synergism) between he and Augustine (yes, you'll be fine, just breathe) that has made it tons easier to see, understand, and believe what the bishops taught at the Council of Trent, which is itself a restatement of Thomas Aquinas, applied to those present difficulties. Once I saw that Thomas, though brilliant in any case, was not the product of some corrupt medievalism but instead simply built upon what had always been believed, it was all academic from there. Hey Reformed people: That Paul Helm dude is good; I definitely enjoyed reading that guy's blog. Regent; I should have known.
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