Sure, he didn't fully embrace "historic" Christological orthodoxy, but he's just doing what a good Protestant should do: Wondering aloud just what is so "historic" about that particular interpretation. He's not bound to it, any more than you have bound yourself to the dogmatic conclusions of the Council of Trent. Oops. I'm seriously not messing with you when I say things like, "There is an irreconcilable conflict between the fundamental principle of the Reformation, and the imposition of ecclesiastical authority." If you want an "historic" faith, you are bound to those means by which it became the historic, true, and universal faith. When it's all said and done, you're either an atheist, or a child of the Catholic Church. Man alive, that is scary business! But it's enlivening, too.
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