Inspecting the world through the lens of the Word
and trying to live each day bringing more of myself under submission to Christ.
The meta makes my head hurt, and I thought I enjoyed discussions about the hypostatic union.I'm a big supporter of the distinction between the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ, and their differing roles in the ordo salutis, but I'm having trouble figuring out whether that's even relevant to this discussion. I wish we could all agree on standard theological terminology and usage. It might be helpful, if somebody is making a case for something, to clearly define that they affirm this confession and its view of x but deny that confession's view of x or something like that. It would be a helpful starting point for conversations like that one.
The meta started snowballing - turning the discussion from - "the law doesn't make anyone righteous" into "Unless you affirm everything and anything that's been loosely stapled to an early ecumenical council - you are a heretic."Then there is always the my history is more accurate than your history tangents - followed closely, or perhaps paralleled by the my standard, my theological framework, trumps yours, which degenerates of course into "Says you!"All in all - I was quite impressed with the boys for keeping their tempers ;-0
I just posted my two cents in Daniel's comments, for what it's worth.
After a discussion like that, I tend to question my ability to communicate and understand at the most basic levels.
On the other hand, Souj, I imagine that just that type of discussion went on at each and every one of those councils.
Daniel, et al...Keeping my temper? After Matt said the same thing I did? Even after you answer me, which proves Matt doesn't think I'm worth plowing through 50+ comments to find? Never! *gratuitous sulking, yelling, and otherwise questionable Christian character inserted here*No one loves me, *sob*
Sadly, I actually tried to read the comments, and still missed yours. Hopefully I'm not saying exactly the same as you did, or else Daniel has already answered and we can all go home.FWIW, 1) I didn't purposely rip you off, and 2) Glad to know I'm not the only one who was thinking this way.
Its all good, Gummby, I missed half of it too, even after reading it twice! I'm just having a great day, and I thought I might balance it out by being an annoying link troll!Matt? Matt? Daniel, Brad, hey wait, guys, where ya' goin'Aw, man, ran 'em off again!
Long, and extremely verbose metas are the scrourge of blogging. ;-)Though I was pleased to see the interest.
Daniel: I have at least one more comment, but not sure when I'll get around to posting it.
Post a Comment