You say he’s a platonist and elsewhere imply he fell afoul of Paul’s strictures on pagan vanity
Your frame is silly. It’s especially silly coming from a Baptist since, as the papists love to point out, many ideas of the low church can be traced back in unbroken succession to actual heretics. You don’t think that matters for *you* because you are unaware of that history
-
-
But it makes it ridiculous to claim that when you introject your axioms about free will into interpretation, that you are just invoking “common sense” and anyone who doesn’t see that axiom as necessary must be “influenced” by some other philosophy
-
Nope, it's merely appealing to the perspicuity of Scripture and its revelation in natural human languages which have accessible meanings that exist without having to resort to allegorical or esoteric flights of fancy.
-
It's the difference between starting with Scripture itself as the frame of reference and working forward from there versus starting with what people hundreds of years after the fact said *about* Scripture and working backwards
-
Otherwise, we'd have to conclude that a sound hermeneutics does not require actually referencing the source material (i.e. Scripture), which *would* be silly, I agree
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is a very odd argument, since popery itself represents a marked deviation from apostolic Christianity (i.e. is a heresy). Its *actual* argument isn't so much that "low church" is heretical, but that LC deviates from popery, which is an *entirely different* matter altogether
-
Further, there isn't really any sound history to support it anywise. Most of what we know of medieval "heretics" comes from their enemies, so the info is suspect. When we *do* have access to what these groups actually believed, they end up being orthodox, by and large
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.