Skip to main content

My Hope For The Mercy Of God Is Real

So what would be the point of fussing over whether any person is "saved" in this moment? That could change. I don't know whether I'm saved in this moment. If that bothers you, because Luther, Calvin, or "Jesus Loves Me" said so, get over it. Mother Church says moral certainty is really all we have.

I don't want Benny Hinn to burn in the fires of Hell. I don't want anyone to end up there. Why is this shocking? Is there a point of doctrinal or moral error where we get to utter some pious version of, "We don't like you"? That's not how this works; that's not how any of this works.

I'm all about drawing lines in the sand, as it were. If you don't believe me, check the archives. But I'm going to talk incessantly about the mercy of God, the unyielding, unchanging, unquenchable fire that is Love. Judgment is all the more terrible when you begin to understand.

I don't think anyone should dare to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ until they have reflected on what it would mean for someone to be separated from everything good, forever. This isn't just columns on a ledger; this is the real thing. I need all of you to know that I have never been wronged enough to wish for this. There's no way. And I've been wronged, big time. Possibly worse than you have; maybe not. I do know that the Last Things brings clarity to each moment; it puts everything into perspective. My heart indeed burns with so much affection, I wish that God's justice would never come. It will, however, and we will say, "Lord, all your judgments are just and true." Yet if the Lord does not desire the death of the wicked, why do you, O foolish person?

There is no greater tragedy than to watch a person made in the image of God destroy themselves, or to waste this limited time on Earth serving themselves, instead of God and others. Anyone who truly believes this doesn't waste time in idle chatter about wheat and tares.

Maybe some people are busy defending a soteriology, instead of proclaiming Christ, I don't know. I just know "Do not judge, lest you be judged" seems to say to me that I'm the one with the plank in my eye.

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