Maybe Darryl Had A Point? Driscoll v. Catholic Creeds | The Heidelblog.
Advertisements
The Sovereign Logos
A Blog dedicated to the exaltation of Christ above all.
Recent Comments
Hugh McCann on Protestantism Is Over and the… Hugh McCann on “Abba” is not… Andrew Felts on “Abba” is not… Hugh McCann on Pentecostal Jazz Hugh McCann on Pentecostal Jazz
Advertisements
Maybe Hart has a point. Maybe Driscoll’s shouldn’t be dismissed, either, though.
Or is it, “Quote the ‘fathers’ – that’ll fix him!”?
LikeLike
What a low view of the Spirit, that He should leave the Church catholic in manifest ignorance as to fundamental truths of the faith…
LikeLike
But you’re not insinuating I am bereft of the Spirit, just that I am demeaning Him?
Why should the ECFs (the Church catholic/ universal) be looked upon as being better than theologians of the (relatively) recent past? The ECFs screwed up a lot.
The “Church catholic” in its Romish variety IS “in manifest ignorance as to fundamental truths of the faith…” As has been the “Eastern Church catholic.”
Many professors of Christ in the “Church catholic” today and throughout time have been “in manifest ignorance as to fundamental truths of the faith…”
LikeLike
I don’t think you’re bereft of the Spirit. I think you misunderstand the meaning of “church catholic” though – it doesn’t mean “the majority of those who claim the name of Christ.” Siding with Driscoll over, well, all of orthodox Christianity, isn’t exactly something I’d choose to broadcast.
LikeLike
Then please define “Church catholic.”
I have not sided with Driscoll over anyone. You are reading into my posts the most nearly negative spin possible.
LikeLike
It’s your blog. Good night, Patrick.
LikeLike
The universal church made up of actual believers. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you; I thought you were disparaging the orthodox creeds and the argumentation made by historic theologians in favor of Driscoll’s “point.”
LikeLike
Scott Clakrk denies me access to post @ his blog. Oh well, it’s his bat & ball.
The ECFs are no more infallible than Driscoll or Martin or Giles or Hart.
Years of debate and reflection went into the creeds. Give people time to learn definitions and make distinctions. Giles is hard to comprehend (a very unclear writer), and, like Hart, appears to show no mercy to those not up to speed.
Again, did not John MacArthur deny Christ’s eternal surbordination at one time, trying to protect his deity? Maybe the means are errant, but maybe he & Driscoll & Martin tried their best to defend the truth.
LikeLike
Maybe.
LikeLike