I’m not commenting on the publication. I haven’t browse the book. I’ve no inclination to learn the reserve. My comments don’t intend to represent what the book says. That’s because I have no idea what the reserve says. I’m simply using the review as a launchpad. I’m accepting the reviewer’s summary as accurate with regard to argument.
My responses don’t rely on that, because my goal is to interpret ideas, not interpret the book. I’m evaluating certain ideas on the merits, if that’s actually the actual authors espouse. I’ll begin with a general observation: as I’ve probably remarked on other events, there are Protestants who have problems with an inferiority complex.
Sola scriptura makes them feel insecure. They have a hankering for Mother Kirk. I don’t think you can speak people like this out of their position, because it’s temperamental. There are a certain personality type who is suffering from a psychological need to have Mother Kirk keep their hands when they mix the road.
- Family, Friends & Relationships
- Apply to clean skin day and night time
- Lindera Benzoin,
- Pack lid with Peggy
- 5/10. Minus 0.5 until I get the main one with a better formulation
That’s not part of my own psychological makeup, so it is not something I could relate to-or care to relate with. Not surprisingly, some of these people leave the Protestant beliefs eventually. Not surprisingly, when they are doing, they often head for the Orthodox church or the Roman church. Their center of gravity tilted for the reason that path.
Is it possible to be both Reformed and catholic? Can one stand squarely within Protestantism yet be vitally involved with, say, the first church? Can one be uncompromisingly focused on the Reformation solas while also visibly rooted in the patristic and middle ages traditions that preceded the Reformation? Exactly what does it mean to be “rooted,” much less “visibly” rooted in the patristic and medieval heritage?
Does that just suggest appropriating the best of the past? If so, why is the writers think Protestant theologians haven’t already strip-mined the church fathers and scholastic theologians because of their precious ore? Likewise, how is one rooted in the past visibly? Does that mean anything? Or is it only a nice-sounding, nonsensical metaphor?
That’s a euphemism. Of all Christians that died and resided, a portion were writers. Of the fraction who have been writers, a fraction of their writings were conserved. Of the small fraction whose authors were conserved, only small percentage make the trim. It’s a thin upper crust of Christian writers from the middle ages and patristic period who are ever studied.
Most of the “entire cathedral” disappeared with out a track. Why should we go after catholicity? What makes that the concern? Consensus for consensus sake? Christianity is exposed religious beliefs. Shouldn’t our concern be to believe and live regarding to God’s revelation? Start out with that’s true. Do my beliefs match up with reality? Do I accordingly live? That is the proper frame of reference.