natamllc said...
I will post the comments here and see where they go?That's your warning. Stream of consciousness from here on out!
Joe, I can call you Joe, right? :)Yes, Joe's fine. And given the amount of respect and decorum the rest of this comment evinces, that question has to be rhetorical.I find this comment about as good as it gets when trying to pen the tail on the donkey blindfolded:::>
Joe at his blog, wrote: "....that there was no authentic Christianity prior to 1517 A.D. - that it had simply disappeared in a "Great Apostasy" that eliminated 100% of Christians;...".
Huh? Ah, huh, huh? Ah, ah, aahuh!
Actually, I never said that. That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of my view. I believe that no Great Apostasy occurred, and my post showed how a Total Apostasy is unbiblical. I presented it as one of three possible Protestant views. And I'm not sure what kind of argument "Huh? Ah, huh, huh? Ah, ah, aahuh!" is.
For starters, it is indeed ironic the blog is titled "shameless popery".
When I put that quote next to these Sacred Scriptures, for me, at least, it highlights the perjorative nature anyone of any sense of Spiritual revelation easily bends too:::>
Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
I have no idea what connection he's drawing between "that quote" (which I assume is his gross misquotation of my position) and the passage. What little bit I do gather is that he thinks that anyone who reads Scripture with "any sense of Spiritual revelation" will come to the same conclusion. Already answered that here.
And equally mezmorizing is the reality being missed, that is, that one has to ask, in light of those Sacred Scriptures, presumably read by the patriarchs of the Faith down through the ages and epochs and generations from the days after the destruction of Jerusalem around 70 a.d. "isn't God's plan good enough for you"?
What is wrong with God's plan, I ask?
Isn't that what got the German's ball rolling down hill? Didn't Calvin and others of his era pick up many of the pieces too, the efforts of mankind?
This is exactly my point from here, regarding Luther's turning on the Jews, Muslims, and Catholics in The Jews and Their Lies. When you have no authority above yourself to appeal to (like ecumenical Councils, the Church, etc. - which, by the way, are the Biblical authorities we see in places like 1 Timothy 3:15 and Acts 15, particularly v. 28), you're reduced to making "Can't you see? This is clearly the right interpretation!" arguments. And they're that much less compelling when you're making an argument for something like forensic justification contra over a millennium of Christian thought. You're right that the Early Church Fathers read Scripture constantly. You're wrong in assuming that they were sola Scripturists or that they added something to Scripture. They inherited Divine Revelation by word of mouth, as 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 forecast.
But the other problem with this "all reasonable people interpret the Bible the way I do" is that it makes people assume (like Luther did) that anyone who disagrees is dishonest, not just wrong. I suspect that this is why the Calvinist online apologists (with some notable exceptions) are the only people who are as vitriolic, hateful, and uncharitable as the New Atheists: both sides are usually really smart males who get their enjoyment from shouting people down in Internet forums, and if they can drag Christ's Name into it, all the better. Besides, if only "blindness, obduracy, and malice"can make anyone disagree with your personal Biblical interpretation, those jerks deserve to be yelled at, I guess.
One has to accept the doctrine of predestination in light of such "shameless popery" and conclude with the Elect of God, He has a plan that is "fit for His King" so that from the nature of mankind, a Kingdom comes and His Will is done on earth as it is in Heaven itself, has been done, is being done and when it is done, will still be done, without such shameless popery, I add! :)So all of the elect of God have the same (Calvinist, non-Catholic) view of predestination? There were no known saints between the Apostles and the Reformers? I'm just interested how someone with even a marginal knowledge of Church history could possibly take that view.
Christ made clear that His Kingdom is already upon Earth (cf. Mark 1:15, Matthew 16:17-19). And while we're making Our Father allusions, might I suggest another? The original Greek uses a never-before-seen term as an adjective for Bread in the Our Father. St. Jerome translates it in one Gospel as "Daily Bread," and in another as "Supersubstantial Bread." In other words, the Eucharist.
