Monergism is a cruel mistress. It's fun to stay at the RCIA! [Terrible. Just terrible.--ed.]
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
My argument has always been we should argue against a debate opponent's best representatives, not their worst.
My point is, this sort of attack is used against Augustine even -- I've seen people do it. But, it misses the mark. Note that the "thoughtful monergist" (let's call him TM) doesn't deny James's statement that faith without works is dead. Rather, the TM will argue that while the work all comes from God, the life that God is working in will show fruit. Saying, "Well, I'm forgiven no matter what, so I'll just kill myself and enjoy the afterlife" doesn't sound like a life showing fruit, so -- Biblically, speaking -- I would say that such a person is the seed that fell on the rocky soil, not someone who is actually regenerate.
That's pretty much what TMs have said over the ages.