To follow up on the last post, I TOTALLY understand if another Christian, possessed of the same information as I have, confronted with the same questions as I have been, nevertheless declines to reach the conclusions I have; none of us can say with any clarity where our own journeys will take us; all we can ask of each other is honesty and charity. What I want to say, however, is that we all deserve a better answer from the Reformed than what we got linked above. If those "neo-Catholics" were personal friends of yours, would you write that response to them? Would you be able to look them in the eye? Now, I may decline to engage the stupid arguments of my uneducated friends, and I might prudentially decide it'd be better not to talk about it, but if I choose to talk about it, I have the obligation not to insult the person for their lack of understanding. That's what's so troubling about this. I've known Bryan Cross for 2 years; I've been eye-to-eye with him at least once a week that whole time. I was Reformed for 99% percent of that time. I would have never written an article like either one of these. Just think about that. I know that Mathison (in the second case) is quite capable of making an argument without insulting people; whatever its demerits, Given for You is quite non-insulting. Whatever Bryan Cross' opinion is regarding unicorns, I know for sure that his submission to the Bishop of Rome is much more reasonable.
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