Loss Of Dogma, And A Smile On The Way Down, Exhibit A: Isn't he pretty much admitting that it comes down to personal preference? Is this what we're left with? Why does "appreciation" entail, "Accepts your doctrinal distinctives without a fuss"? No one sees a problem here?
More questions: Does he know that Kung is a heretic, and that, at the least, von Balthasar, Rahner, and Kasper are wrong in what they teach? Does he care?
I hate to break it to you: If you're not Catholic, you are not in the Church. That was the whole point of Trent: to say that the Reformers needed to repent of their errors, and return. That's what heresy means. It does not mean you are an inhuman beast who has no value. It means you are intentionally and persistently at a variance with Catholic doctrine. The penalty of excommunication is meant to produce repentance, not defiance and badges of honor.
This makes people really mad. It upsets them. It makes them think the Catholic Church is pronouncing damnation on people, something it never does, actually. For me, to consider the possibility that I was a Christian not in Christ's Church was liberating. It allowed me to seek out the evidence and the definitions of such words, instead of making them up myself.
My previous definitions of such words: Heresy--Some wilfully evil dirt-bag who believes falsehood intentionally at the behest of Satan.
Church: All who believed in Jesus Christ, whatever that meant.
Schism--What is that, anyway? It sounds cool.
The inconsistency of my theological stance had been that I was not a theological relativist, but by necessity as a Protestant embraced an ecclesiology which leads to it as a consequence. Why? Because "what Scripture says" was defined by me, and my embrace or not of secondary authorities was also defined by me. My submission to ecclesiastical authorities was provisional, insofar as it agrees with Scripture, which of course, is defined by me, ultimately. Mr. Olson seems perfectly content with the relativism which is inherent in his ecclesiology; I am not. Nor should we be content with this, as Preslar notes. What if the truth is that Keith Mathison argued for Sola Scriptura as well as he could, but the emperor has no clothes?
More questions: Does he know that Kung is a heretic, and that, at the least, von Balthasar, Rahner, and Kasper are wrong in what they teach? Does he care?
I hate to break it to you: If you're not Catholic, you are not in the Church. That was the whole point of Trent: to say that the Reformers needed to repent of their errors, and return. That's what heresy means. It does not mean you are an inhuman beast who has no value. It means you are intentionally and persistently at a variance with Catholic doctrine. The penalty of excommunication is meant to produce repentance, not defiance and badges of honor.
This makes people really mad. It upsets them. It makes them think the Catholic Church is pronouncing damnation on people, something it never does, actually. For me, to consider the possibility that I was a Christian not in Christ's Church was liberating. It allowed me to seek out the evidence and the definitions of such words, instead of making them up myself.
My previous definitions of such words: Heresy--Some wilfully evil dirt-bag who believes falsehood intentionally at the behest of Satan.
Church: All who believed in Jesus Christ, whatever that meant.
Schism--What is that, anyway? It sounds cool.
The inconsistency of my theological stance had been that I was not a theological relativist, but by necessity as a Protestant embraced an ecclesiology which leads to it as a consequence. Why? Because "what Scripture says" was defined by me, and my embrace or not of secondary authorities was also defined by me. My submission to ecclesiastical authorities was provisional, insofar as it agrees with Scripture, which of course, is defined by me, ultimately. Mr. Olson seems perfectly content with the relativism which is inherent in his ecclesiology; I am not. Nor should we be content with this, as Preslar notes. What if the truth is that Keith Mathison argued for Sola Scriptura as well as he could, but the emperor has no clothes?
Comments