Safe Haven

John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." John 12:32: "And after I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself." If the Reformed wish to be consistent, it would seem they should be universalists.

I would rather someone pick up a Bible and say, "Based on this string of passages, your doctrine is wrong here, here, and here" than someone who wants to claim the universal faith AND the right to interpret the Bible his own way. If you're Reformed, you're not Catholic. To say that you are truly "catholic" is a claim, which (blessedly) is made by both the Reformed and the Catholic Church. But you have to give each group credit: they want unity as far as possible, but they don't pretend it's closer than it is. They don't pretend that the differing dogmas are just semantics. But that's why the historical challenge is so devastating from the Catholic Church: She points back in history and says, "To the extent we agree, was it not formed here at the Council? Was not the Holy Father the head of the apostolic college even then? Are not the heroes of the early battles in the visible Church Catholic heroes?" Biblicism cannot account for t...

5. This cat could top the charts with "Happy Birthday To You." Man alive. 4. Just so we understand each other, there is a 0% chance I'm not buying the new Streisand "Partners" album. Stevie Wonder, Babyface, Lionel, and John Legend. Are you kidding? She could have slept through the entire album, and it would still rule. 3. He doesn't know how he's supposed to live without you, but man, it sounds good. 2. I don't know what the Isley Brothers were upset about. "Love Is A Wonderful Thing" was a huge hit for Bolton, and a much better version. They sued it out of existence, even though they'll get royalties until their grandkids are 97. You make pop music, not life-saving drugs. Get over yourself. 1. Eeek, what an awful song! I can't believe Bolton lost the case! Nothing alike.

I take "Catholic rite" to mean, "in communion with the Bishop of Rome." Otherwise, the Sunday obligation is not fulfilled by a presence at even a true Eucharist celebrated by those not in communion with him, unless no other option exists. That's my read of it, unless I'm missing something. Feel free to attend an Orthodox liturgy; just go to a Catholic one, also.

5. I'd say the Incarnation proves God is pretty "man-centered," but that's just me. 4. You could just say, "I don't believe you are saved, and thus, I accord your Scriptural arguments no consideration." It would save me time. 3. The logical consequence of having a makeshift "magisterium of scholarship" is being at the mercy of majority scholarly opinion, as in the opinion that John 8:1-8 isn't really in the Bible, or Mark 16:9-20. Put this in your, "Conservative Protestantism is liberal Protestantism waiting to happen" file. 2. I could have gone to worship with the Lutherans (or the soon to be formed Reformed) or to a Catholic Mass, in 15-something. What I can't get you to understand, Reformed Biblicist Guy, is exactly the power of this question: What makes you right, and the papist wrong? It does no good to point back from today to Calvin or whomever, because in that time, all options are live. The question of authority...

I'm in this debate forum with Catholics and Reformed, and the Reformed keep saying, "Catholic doctrine compels one to conclude that one could and does go from regenerate to unregenerate and back again. And that's no way to live." Let me tell you about that. I would not say I know for certain that I'd have gone to Hell if I died. God's mercy is... But I know the worst part of judging yourself unworthy to receive the Eucharist, the Bread of Life, is that when you're really stuck, you don't care. Lesser sins really don't do what the grave ones do. You can experience what it means to cut yourself off from God. There is no doubt of it; we are different people at times like that. You lose the direction of your life; you sense yourself choosing against what you know to be true, because something earthly is preferable, for any number of reasons. But mercy comes again. God says, "Hey! This isn't what you want. This isn't who you are. Com...

I enjoyed it . But then, I like pop, and I like Madonna, in spite of herself. There is something about "faith and sex and God," as Counting Crows say. McLaren is right about that, even if he doesn't know much of what he speaks. This isn't the first time I've read your blog, by the way. If you are a "crazy-face," we need a few more. Grace teaches us the twin truth that we have no right to be in communion with God, but here we are, provided that we continue in His kindness. I come to know that this continuing does not consist in effort, but in giving and receiving. If it had been said that we are passive in the reception of grace by various dissenters, its kernel of truth is that grace is not native or natural to us.

Of course, we Catholics don't believe "religion" and "politics" are like the potatoes and lima beans on the plate of life which should never touch. Buahaha! But seriously, someone have the stones to challenge the Johnson Amendment!  So long as we weren't lurching toward tyranny, it'd be fun to watch avowed secularists and relativists (attempt to) explain why their morality should be imposed on churches and ecclesial communities, even if those groups flouted the prohibitions of the law. What inherent authority (beyond good old monopolies on coercive force) would sanction the taxation of groups who refused to comply? Just dare them to take away the tax exemption. What common good justifies the restriction of political activities by churches? I can't think of one. There is a difference between accepting pluralism to an extent for peace, and making pluralism the highest civic virtue. You probably know for whom your pastor voted. You know who he might...

Shocking, I know. Yet it's not only because they are wrong--though they might be, depending on the context--or that they lack any shred of living faith in any form, though of course, that's entirely possible. There are other contexts where you need the freedom to be wrong, to consider even the logical outcome of the most odious theological conclusions. Speculative theology, for one. So, I think this is the main reason the Holy Father was so...conciliatory toward positions I'm sure he could readily identify as "temptations" or even occasions for sin. He doesn't know precisely why they are being offered in any one case, and even if he did, he doesn't ever close the door on an opportunity for conversion, even a bishop! When we say "conversion," by the way, we mean the ongoing process of being conformed to the image of Christ. So, a justified person undergoes conversion; an unjustified person certainly could. Obviously, I was confused by this for a l...

I should like subscribe by e-mail or something. How did I miss this most recent post ? Was I asleep when they taught that section of the Catechism? [No, man. It's like Dukeman et al. say: no one reads the Catechism.--ed.] I aspire to! Somebody is! I would look quizzically at the CINOs in college (let the reader understand) who told me they got "days" instead of absolution. They boasted about it. I never knew why until I heard the stories of St. John Vianney, who could read souls. He'd tell you he knows you're not repentant, so come back in 3 days. It's not even a hard bar to clear: if you want to be free of a "besetting sin," in the evangelical parlance, he'll absolve you, even if he knows you may need practice in virtue before it's gone. Anyway, the Church is exceedingly merciful these days, but it's not "mercy" to say sin is no longer sin. I used to feel like some of my readers: call down fire from Heaven on all the sinner...

It's like this for a ton of things. In baseball, sometimes winning and losing is separated by a base hit up the middle, or a bunt. In theology, if your idea of the "Church" leads unquestionably to mutually exclusive doctrines concerning the same question coexisting, it must be false. That which Christ promised to protect is not the US Senate. I realize that this opens up unpleasant and scary possibilities, but trust me, you will not die, and Jesus is waiting for you.

Nope, it's not a Grand Slam bracket when Federer has a bad day; it's the dilemma that made me a Catholic. Here's the Westminster Confession Of Faith, Chapter XI, "Of Justification" in its entirety:  I.Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; [1]  not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, [2]  they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God. [3] II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: [4]  yet is it not alone in the person justified, bu...

It is not reasonable to hold set of doctrines x, in contradistinction to doctrines y, based upon a shared appeal to the Scriptures, in that the dispute alone demonstrates the appeal not dispositive. In English: Neither man has any reason to believe that the Holy Spirit is not speaking to him. So either God is lying or in error, or this isn't the way to figure out what God said. Pretty simple, but you actually have to consider in humility that the other guy might not be Satanically deceived, simply because he disagrees. If you see this in good faith often enough, you'll doubt not God, but this hermeneutical method.

I could make non-negotiables into adiaphora, and I could remain blissfully uncritical about my interpretations, and where I got them, in order to believe in perspicuity and Sola Scriptura. But my problem was, I believed that God couldn't lie, or err. Which means that, whether I believed my interpretation or another, I had to face the reality that Scripture would not adjudicate between them; each retains a plausibility structure which itself causes enough doubt that preference and cultural inertia are the only basis upon which to choose. I can think of nothing more unfitting for something that purports to be from Heaven. Ben Carmack, Gregory Shane Morris, and Tim Dukeman may not be willing to face the implications of it, but I couldn't ignore it. Sorry, guys. The whole Reformation is self-refuting.

I'm not unsympathetic to arguments like this one . Indeed, the very fact that a phrase like "Cosby conversation" (where a black man speaks the truth about the harm black America does to itself, that a white person isn't allowed to say) exists shows that many have justly tired of the race grievance industry. BUT...I happened to see that one David McCallum was exonerated of murder, after 29 years in prison. I hoped before I clicked that he was white. It happens sometimes, right? But no. Frankly, in that moment, it was not hard to imagine what much of black America was thinking: "Great. One guy. What about all the others? And the ones who died before justice was served?" I believe in the greatness of what America stands for; I believe it's the best to live and die on the Earth. I don't believe in that ideal enough to not look frankly at where things actually stand, as opposed to where we want them to be. I believe in structural racism and white priv...

5. I agree that "Kasper The Unfriendly Ghost" is funny, and does reflect the orthodox opinion of His Eminence's views regarding divorce and re-marriage, but it likely borders on a lack of charity. Let us instead pray His Eminence is merely misinformed, and that he changes course while the opportunity remains. 4. Anti-Catholic bigotry is real. It would simply merit a mention alongside anything that opposes Christ but for the fact that other Christians engage in it also! And to be direct, that's biting the (divine) hand that feeds you, whether you know it or not. 3. I try to practice a "gradualism" in eating my candy nowadays, with less success than in years past! Nomnomnom! 2. We need a win. Go Cards! 1. Dear Facebook, I do not know why you have deactivated the great Bob Lozano's Facebook account, but his witty banter is comedy gold. You have made it appear that I enjoy talking to myself, and for this, you have earned my scorn. "If [Facebook...

If any of you listen to the Bobby Bones radio show in the mornings, you may know that their colleague Amy's mom is dying of cancer. I can't find the link right now, but suffice to say, it is heartbreaking. There may be a mercy in the time to say goodbye, but I look back now, and I'm glad I lost my dad suddenly, and before I was me. Sometimes certain people are just the kind who torture themselves with what they should have said and done; I am one of those people. We have only one enemy greater than death, which is sin that kills our souls. Find true goodness and forgiveness in Christ and the Church while we have time. Death doesn't wait until all the fences are mended. We need to know mercy for the most important relationship of all. This culture offers us easy believism, and a humanistic universalism, as if merely being human were enough. You probably know their magisterial declaration by heart: "He's in a better place." Don't mistake that human g...

I chose a provocative title to grab you again. Maybe those of you not in the habit of reading the day's Gospel will do it, just to see what I say. Well, that's vain. Then again, this blog fits in that misty grey between public and private space. I couldn't get pop culture out of my head as I read this. Do you remember that part in Les Miserables fairly early on, when the king gives the slain labor leader a state funeral, though he orchestrated his death? That's exactly what I imagine when I read Jesus here. There may have been a great many people who were fond of being God's chosen people, but wanted no part of what God requires. God seems to remind us again and again that His grace is for something; we don't get to hoard blessings, or, if you will, to bury talents. Would I be angry if God showed mercy to the wrong sorts of people? Would I cling to some work of God in the past, or some privilege of mercy he granted, but not to Him? That's exactly what Je...

I studied political science as an undergraduate. Whether I learned anything is a debatable proposition, but what this area of study does is shed light on how (especially) our government works, or at least how it's supposed to work. If you study it long enough, you pick up an ingrained bias against reactionaries; you appreciate the system. You begin to understand why enemies deliver glowing tributes at an opponent's funeral. We say, "We've got a good system; we have reason to be proud, optimistic, etc." I will never forget the day my favorite instructor put me in my place about Senator Charles Schumer. I was complaining rather vociferously about his obnoxious liberal-ness, and my instructor simply said, "Hey. Senator Schumer loves his country, and he serves his constituents well." (We can argue that supporting abortion doesn't serve anyone, but you get the idea.) I am inclined and sympathetic to that species of person who tells everyone else to st...

I told you so.  It still doesn't mean the war was prudent or just in its waging, but it does in large measure vindicate George W. Bush, and his honesty. I await the progressive apologies with bated breath. It's cool; when they paint Rubio as some dangerous reactionary, pining for the days of George W. Bush, I'll be happy to point out what they said then. [Didn't you vote in 2008 against the foreign policy of George W. Bush?--ed.] Yes. I thought we were on the wrong road, and have been for a long time. But for the record, I never believed the president had bad intent. One weird aspect of this for a non-interventionist like myself is that I join with hawks in criticizing the waging of the war, in limiting it for PR purposes. A war more quickly concluded makes for the swift return of peace and justice. On the other hand, an unjust means cannot be used to achieve a just end (e.g., atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ). I hate it when that happens.