This is fascinating. But not for the reasons you think. I'll cut right to the chase: the defense of orthodoxy is commendable, but a modalist could simply say, "My rejection of Nicea is no different than our shared rejection of Trent." Or as I once wrote, "Both the fool and the Catholic would accuse you of being ad hoc, and they would be right."
At the risk of sounding like some crazy postmillenialist, history itself is now the arena for the outworking of the incarnational dominion of the Son of God. If that's even remotely true, we are as bound to the means by which that dominion has taken place, to which he has bound Himself. The visible Church. The truth is that the Protestant conception of the visible Church is a loose collection of discrete bodies, not the Church.
We'll leave the light on for you.
At the risk of sounding like some crazy postmillenialist, history itself is now the arena for the outworking of the incarnational dominion of the Son of God. If that's even remotely true, we are as bound to the means by which that dominion has taken place, to which he has bound Himself. The visible Church. The truth is that the Protestant conception of the visible Church is a loose collection of discrete bodies, not the Church.
We'll leave the light on for you.
Comments