I'm sure this is convincing to someone, but not to me. I cannot help but note the irony of a small sliver of Reformed Baptists (whatever that means) attempting to speak for all of Christendom. Don't you need some kind of ID to speak for the "Church"? Am I just talking to myself? Paging Fred Noltie! At least Dr. Mohler left out "alone" when he spoke of justification. That was an act of charity, if you will pardon the pun.
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