Skip to main content

5 Thoughts For Today

5. Interesting, but it largely misses the point. This is the fruit of Sola Scriptura: being forced into an uneasy acceptance of a myriad of opinions, because A) no one can tell anyone else what the Bible really says/what it means concerning anything; B) no one agrees about what constitutes the "church"; because C) there is no rule of faith.

4. Unless you make an ad hoc appeal to an ecumenical council or something. Feel free to borrow anything you like, but fair warning: borrowing from the Catholic Church is like being a long-term customer at a rent-to-own place. Sooner or later, you just want to buy the couch. [This is the worst analogy ever.--ed.] Yeah, but now we can make evangelistic t-shirts and stuff that say, "Buy the Couch!"

3. Is it me, or are the Cardinals getting That Look? [Calm yourself.--ed.] Just saying, they are doing that annoying thing they do every year. It's a five-step process:

A) Woefully under-perform both team and national media expectations;

B) Lose a Really Important Guy for a huge chunk of time; (Actually, Cardinals fans know this happens 6 times every season.)

C) Play average enough that they can play the "Nobody believed in us!" card; (hat-tip: Grantland's Bill Simmons)

D) Get inexplicably hot at the right time, winning the hearts of most of America, at least the part that doesn't realize we are actually the Yankees in a plucky, Midwestern disguise;

E) Whatever the outcome, leave the fans swapping, "I almost gave up" and "I always believed" stories for the entire winter, the kind that make Cubs fans want to shank them with a crowbar.

2. I can't remember losing and being more optimistic as we were after the World Series last year. For other teams, "wait 'til next year" is a vain wish; for the Cardinals, it's a threat.

1. Oh, for pete's sake! I could maybe fault the president for an overly-exuberant display of liberal piety, but I don't get outraged by kind words to American Muslims. I just don't. If I lose my membership card and decoder ring, so be it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un