So I just got finished writing my comment in response to Leslie's comment in response to the post below, and I got into bed and picked up my current bedtime book, which is one of these big Ignatius Press editions of Chesterton (shocker), and I run within the first page into the following line:
"...those questions about the will to believe and the operation of grace, and the fact that something more than reason is needed to bring any of us into the most reasonable of all philosophies."
"The righteous will always accept logic"-- but which one of us is righteous?
It is too late at night to argue Pelegianism. Now I am going to bed.
PS yes, Leslie, I know you're not a Pelegian.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Oh, I was making a generalized statement about logic being accepted by the righteous.
When I refer to reason and logic, I probably mean it in a different way than most people. I'm not in a philosophical enough mood to define those terms to me, so I'll provide an example.
I have heard that some Modernists will "rationalize" away such dogmas as Transubstantiation, whereas to me logic is to be ued to prove said dogma. Through a combination of Biblical miracles, realizing that witnesses were still around when said miracles were recorded in the Gospels, later eucharistic miracles, etc, one can postulate that Jesus Christ actually said what is in the Gospels. From the sense given in the various passages of Scripture which speak of the Lord's Supper, one can determine that he said "This is my Body", etc., in a literal sense.
I have not read about Pelegianism for at least a year, and I've forgotten all about it, so I'll go offline now in order to reread about it. (Oh, I hope I'm not a Pelegian).
Gee, are you never going to post again? That would be a pity.
Post a Comment