Safe Haven

5. I failed (withdraw-fail) an English class in college because I was late too many times. That one bummed me out; he looked a bit like Brett Favre. And Brett Favre is awesome, in spite of himself. 4. Beauty queens age well, as long as they don't do anything stupid. That's why they're beauty queens. 3. If I become famous, I can say, "I put my pants on the same way as everyone else." On the other hand, can I still say it, given the fact that I outsource that activity? 2. I'm bringing a bag of Fritos to a party chock-full of health-conscious people. 1. Mary is the quintessential mother, obviously. Mother of the Church, and spiritual mother to all Christians. If the apparitions are to be believed, however, Mary never "stays at home."

This is what Sola Scriptura should be called, because that's what it is. It's the right of interpretive veto power over any supposed "church" and its juridical and doctrinal decisions. What it means is that there is no real principled difference between "Solo Scriptura" and "Sola Scriptura". Granted, to create a concept of "derivative authority" to some creed or other thing does create more skin in the game, as it were, to foster the inertia of consensus that's required to maintain some semblance of contact with orthodoxy. But eventually, you're going to break the axiom--Oh, let's call it "JK's Axiom #1"--"One cannot be both the arbiter of divine revelation, and a humble receiver of it at the same time." A naturalist is a person who has used his interpretive veto power to not only question every church, but to question the existence of God. Here's the kicker, though: he's definitely a Protestant

5. I'm grumpy today. Perhaps tomorrow's trip to The Box is well-timed. 4. [Isn't it a little flippant to refer to the Sacrament of Penance with a thinly-veiled sports analogy?--ed.] No, and I'll tell you why. A huge part of the renewal that we need is convincing others and ourselves (by grace) that God absolutely loves us! How many Catholics are "fallen away," simply because they have irrational notions and fears about what we do as Catholics, and why? Actually, it's the perfect analogy. Hockey players don't have an existential crisis every time they commit an infraction. Most of the spectators don't think even the troll on the opposing team who just tripped their guy is at his core irredeemable or inhuman. And yet, no one would argue that infractions should be ignored, despite some variance in the enforcement or application of said rules. Most sinners need to think like hockey players: You are not unworthy to play just because you screw up. 3.

Which means we can think about things other than the Scriptures. Not contradict them, mind you. But the last line here  just annoys me. I don't think anyone confuses a book--an admittedly fallible human product--with divine revelation. I think evangelicals say, "But it's not the Bible" once again to avoid thinking about, or even enjoying, anything. Also, this is why Jesus gave us the Magisterium in the first place: so we know whether something is in accord with what he taught us. We of Christ and Peter's flock do indeed find stupid things to fight about, but our being petty is generally known on all sides. Anyway, Catholics definitely are not averse to visions and things; we were into God doing weird things well before they inspired reactionary conferences from John MacAurthur. [Zing.--ed.] In fact, I'm such an anti-rationalist that I'm more inclined to believe a vision than not believe it, provided it is not obviously contrary to the faith on the face

If this is not clear, this is the argument: Here's the argument: (1) All my sins (past, present, and future) were already forgiven. (2) My sanctification will be accomplished immediately and painlessly at the moment of my death. (3) Given the sufficiency of the work of Christ, nothing can make God any more or less pleased with me than He is right now. (4) Heaven is unimaginably better than here. (5) At death I instantly enter heaven. Ergo....  (6) Suicide is better than waiting around to die. Against the charge that no Reformed person experiences life this way, Bryan helpfully adds:  Of course I agree. I'm pointing out a contradiction between that experience of the meaningfulness of our post-salvation temporal life, and a theology that entails post-salvation temporal meaninglessness. That contradiction ought to concern anyone who cares about truth and therefore wishes to eliminate contradictions from his set of beliefs. So my (temporal nihilism) argument i

Go back to the previous post if you need a refresher, but Dr. Bryan Cross is not, as I understand it, making the syllogism/dilemma to say that any current Reformed person thinks suicide is good; rather, he is asking whether that is a viable conclusion to reach, given the premises. He knows well the conclusion is undesirable, and altogether not good. That's why it's a dilemma. He's definitely saying that Reformed people are inconsistent with their principles, and in this case, that's a very good thing. As Dr. Feingold says, "It is better to be inconsistent with good principles, than to be consistent with bad ones." It seemed to me all over the place that various heretical radical individualists were being very consistent in the application of Sola Scriptura. If a principle well applied (consistently, that is) leads inoxerably and unavoidably to a bad end, most especially for those who do not intend it, that's a good clue it's a bad principle. Overa