Monday, December 30, 2013

10 Points!

10. When someone says, "According to Scripture..." my favorite retort is, "According to whom?"

9. I like Protestant liberals for this very reason, because they are frank to make this challenge, even if they don't leave anything orthodox in its place.

8. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that "Losing My Religion" is playing in the background. Heh.

7. On the other hand, it eventually leads to agnosticism or atheism if you deconstruct every human structure in human history. It's an act of faith to see this as unreasonable, for the Word made flesh to allow man's corruption to taint His gospel, that is.

6. A person needs to know the content and meaning of divine revelation in the places where he lives. If he cannot know the gospel, he cannot do it.

5. An invisible Church cannot define itself, or what it believes.

4. There is an irreconcilable conflict between the fundamental principle of the Reformation (Sola Scriptura) and the invocation of ecclesiastical authority, precisely because the man ultimately submits to himself, and thus, cannot know that what he believes is in fact divine revelation.

3. Is this a bad time to mention that Anglican Holy Orders are invalid? Blame Cranmer. The riff-raff always ruins it for good papists.

2. Ecclesial deism is in direct contradiction to the biblical story, which is the story of God's faithfulness to His people.

1. One cannot be both the arbiter of divine revelation, and a humble receiver of it at the same time.


Timothy R. Butler said...

Can you be the humble receiver of the constitution and the arbiter of it at the same time?

Jason said...


Timothy R. Butler said...

So who is the arbiter?

Jason said...

In your example, or another? In your example, say, a Supreme Court justice would be holding an office of arbitration, but on behalf of others. He can't be the arbiter and a private citizen at the same time in the same way.