Skip to main content

It's Me Again

5 More Thoughts

5. [Cool Movie Voice-Over Guy] "This Lent...One man...For the sake of humanity...will sacrifice everything." Well, no, not everything. Just some things. To hopefully gain the One Thing. Cue the Rich Mullins.

4. If you're too Catholic to know who Rich Mullins is, I pity you. I believe what St. Cyprian said, and what the Catholic Church has always taught. But Rich better be there. I'm not making demands, I'm just saying.

3. I think what I appreciate about him the most in what little I know of his music (though I've surely listened to Songs 8000 times) is that I really believed him when he sang. Honestly, most Christian music sounds like a pep talk, like we're trying to convince ourselves of what we believe, instead of believing it--and doing it.

2. John Mayer doesn't believe or do anything of great consequence, but I appreciate his earnestness as well.

1. For years, I woke up with "Creed," by Rich Mullins. This is what I mean when I say that "derivative authority" is a sham. If this creed is true, if it is an authority in any sense, the authority which gave it must be authoritative as well. There is a value in arbitrarily holding this creed true while rejecting other things from that same authority--for all I know, it's saving your soul--but ad hoc and arbitrary is what I mean when I accuse you of being "unprincipled" on the point. I digress.

Comments

An evil dictator speaks a true, authoritative statement.
If it is a true authoritative statement, then the one who spoke it is true and authoritative.
Therefore the evil dictator is true and authoritative.

It does not follow... re: point 1. :-P
Jason said…
Tim,

Actually, I gotta push back here, because I think it does follow. Consider: Hitler says that 2+2=4. As such, he declares that a billboard be placed on every government building attesting to it. Is it true? Yes. Does Hitler have the authority to declare the law concerning the sign? Yes. He has spoken truthfully and acted authoritatively in this case.

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un