Search results

Depends what your understanding is of Apostolic Succession and the role that that may or may not play in Tradition, I suppose.

Matt Smith's first two stories have been brilliant. He is much less human than DT (witness his rant in the 2nd story, The Beast Below: "No-one human is allowed to talk to me right now!"). Although he's modelled himself largely on Troughton's Doctor (and reminds me of him) he also reminds me of...

If you mean just the NT, then, no; amongst many other things, you would be discarding the Seven Great Ecumenical Councils, to which I as an Anglican subscribe.

To answer TS' OP, no, I don't hold with the Rosary, for the reasons given by Doubting Thomas and also because it does not spring from the Tradition of the Undivided Church.

Indeed. If it walks like a duck etc...

Certainly the future looks bleak for Ratspoison, which is ironic given the fact that he's toughened up the procedures to prevent this kind of thing.

I'm concerned more about the potential for abuse of such a doctrine rather than the doctrine itself.

I've found the following, for example, in Irenaeus' Adv. Haer.: OK, I'll buy it - but with reservations similar to those I have re the theotokos doctrine ie: as long as it doesn't have the effect of raising Mary's status to one of co-equality with her Son.

I'd have to re-read the patristic writings concerned.

Because it purports to equate Mary with the Second Adam ie: Christ; I find that problematic.

Yeah, it's the whole 'Mary being the Second Eve' thing (and, no, I don't buy that either).

You post in this forum! And I was referring to Baptists, if you look.

One doesn't know doctrine apart from 'head knowledge'. And you know this how, exactly? Correct. And how does one have that relationship? Look further in John 3: You've only quoted half the story and ignored the earlier verses posted by me and TS which state the salvific effects of baptism...

Or indeed Mark 16:16.

There's also the 'plain reading' of John 3:5 and I Peter 3:21

Hold on! You can't have it both ways: a post or two ago you said that Christianity is not about head knowledge; now you're saying it's about correct teaching. Which is it?

I wasn't referring to that; I was referring, if you want an example close to home, to those on these boards, Baptists in particular, who disagree on such matters. You still haven't squared that epistemological circle.

Yes, I think we can all agree that. But there are significant soteriological differences, for example, between Catholics and Protestants or between Calvinists and Arminians. I'd like to know how DHK accounts for those differences given his epistemological claims above.

Ah, so that would be why all Christians believe the same things, then?

And how infallible are you? Enquiring minds would like to know...