Thanks to Garver

for your intelligent conversation with David. As I say, I’m not from a Reformed background and one of my principal impressions of Reformed theology is that it seems to have inherited the Catholic knack for coining jargon that baffles ordinary linguistics. So, for instance, when David says that “Limited atonement is actually infinite” my first thought is, “Then why call it ‘limited’ and not ‘infinite’?” Likewise, slogans like “faith alone” (followed by complex explanations about how James, in condemning the notion of “faith alone” (James 2:24) was not really condemning the notion of “faith alone”) leave me in the dust. My principal impression of the Truly Reformed is that semantics are being using to keep alive a quarrel that is definitely past its prime. So, for instance, I’ve been told by some Reformed folk that the propositions condemned by Trent are ridiculous caricatures of what the Reformers actually believed and that if the Church were serious it would address the actual arguments of the Reformers and not these silly cartoons she condemned at Trent. But then David tells me the propositions condemned by Trent are absolutely perfect descriptions of what the Reformers believed and that the Church was wrong to condemn them.

What’s a confused guy like me to do? I begin to get the impression that Reformed theology, for all its precision, is rather a moving target. And since the Catholic theology it exists to criticize seems to me to be very sensible, I’ve never been able to muster the energy to try mastering it, because I’d rather understand the Catholic tradition and feed on it. There’s only so many hours in a day. So I’m glad you’re here Garver and can deal with the intricacies of the argument. I’m much obliged. For all you blog readers, check out Garver’s site!