Consider the interlocutor: he blocked me because I pushed back against his views on inner Latin rite Catholic issues.
Anthony Miller@amillaaaa
@_taylor_TJ There's reasons why we debate that you may not be considering
English
Brooks Robinson
18.9K posts
Brooks Robinson
@barob05
Husband. Father. Catholic lay minister & theologian. Moral Theology. Systematic Theology. VFW. Tweets are my views only. RTs mean interest, not endorsement.
Katılım Nisan 2020
2.1K Takip Edilen359 Takipçiler
*This* sermon is the only terrible idea here.
Pastor Jake Dell@jakedell73
Imitating Christ is terrible idea Classic Kempis L
English
@Monergism1662 Yes, I understand that Protestants say that. That doesn’t remove the conflation of the material with the formal.
English
@barob05 Trent says that concupiscence is materially sinful because it stems from actual sin and has the tendency to cause actual sin. But Protestant scholastics go further and say that concupiscence is truly and properly sin in itself, which is also the teaching of the Doctor of Grace.
English
Material=formal? Weird category issue here.
Schoolman@Monergism1662
That concupiscence is formally sinful is the definitive view of all magisterial Protestant traditions, which underpins our doctrine of gratuitous justification. Anabaptists are not Protestant. Here, for example, is the venerable Bishop Davenant on the matter: x.com/MESabo86/statu…
English
Brooks Robinson retweetledi
Jordan Cooper implies in the video that Catholics teach charity - the virtue - is the efficient cause of justification, and this is the difference from Lutherans on justification.
But this is false. I don't know where he got the idea Catholics teach it.
youtu.be/K7JDHRGi7eU?si…
YouTube
English
“Why would anyone beyond the hallways of Harvard Divinity School or the streets of Santa Monica think that liberalism still explains much of anything about America religion?” (Leigh Eric Schmidt, 2005)
English
@amillaaaa I think we can draw out a distinction--which is a more fruitful heuristic IMO--btwn a fundamental ecclesiology (which is presumed) & a systematic & dogmatic ecclesiology. Which is worked out by Christians baptized & faith in the Triune God.
English
@amillaaaa I mean, in some sense you are correct. God created a people to commune with, we sinned, & God redeems us. The Church is union with Christ, which results from the incarnation. I don't emphasize the divide, & that's where we differ. The OP presumes an ecclesial context & a trad.
English
Ecclesiological anxiety arises from having a false view of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and forgetting the basic gospel of who Christ is and what He's done for you. If you're already thinking that you need a specific tradition to define this for you, this illustrates my point
English
@amillaaaa Or to put differently, the gospel is apostolic tradition & something proclaimed by the Church. And the proclamation is the Church’s faith. We don’t do this in abstraction & merely as isolated individuals.
English
@amillaaaa I clearly didn’t say we start with the Church. We start with God; after all, it is God’s plan to have a people—& yes this includes redeeming said people. My point simply is that we don’t have these conversations without the Church—and I’ll add—Tradition. It isn’t a neat parsing.
English
@amillaaaa We start with the Triune God and God’s revelation. Weird to say that’s the wrong starting point! haha
English
@amillaaaa And the “right understanding” of God is fides quae, ie the language of the Church. I’d urge more space for interrelationships between loci. And yes, the creed’s profession regarding the Church immediately follows the Spirit & also Christ’s salvific work.
English
@amillaaaa I think God determines ecclesiology ;). There is a both/and here. Soteriological conversations take place within the Church, ie the proclamation of the gospel is the mission of the Church. And in order to be a member of the Church, normatively one is baptized—which is salvific.
English
@amillaaaa There is only one Church. The question really is about the nature of the Church & one’s relationship to the one Church.
English
@ferrismattic No. Revelation, Scripture, & Tradition are debated categories (& still so). Historical debates/beliefs around these things do not mean they are an implication. As there were other views on this topic.
English
What Brian Tierney identifies here—ecclesiastical fideism—represents, I think, the most profound gap between the hierarchical churches and Protestants.
English
@amillaaaa I’m sure there is a black swan. But I’ve never heard anyone say something that implies that they believe themselves to be more sophisticated or intelligent than their former pastor. Maybe a “my pastor couldn’t answer these questions I had.” But I think it’d be dismissive to frame
English
Someone who thinks this way would be disappointed when they find out they are also smarter and more sophisticated than their Catholic priest.
Miles Smith IV@IVMiles
There's a moment when smart Evangelical/Reformed guys in college or grad school go to a Sunday service and it hits them they're smarter and more sophisticated than the guy in the pulpit. They start thinking about Rome. I get it. Srsly DM me. Happy to talk. No judgement.
English
@amillaaaa Maybe. I think if folks enter full communion for intellectual reasons it’s more about theologians or theological issues. Not because they think they’re more smart than their pastor.
English