Thanks again,
A few short responses.
As to the view of God between Lutherans and the Reformed, I would be interested to know how you think they differ so significantly. I find the platonic God of the East where man must climb the chain of being and the split-level reconstruction of Aquinas to be a significant reorientation.
I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll read JPII if you read Cornelius Van Til.
As to the term Romanists: I use the term because it’s a nice shorthand for Roman Catholic Church. I’m pretty conservative so I’m not into political correctness or politically correct speech. I also use it as a ministry tool to Romanists to make clear to those of that church that I consider their church as merely another denomination within Christdom. I don’t want to lead those congregants into the false belief that I accept their own false designation of their denomination.
You remind me of a story. I used to advise politicians on media and elections. One was attempting to become the first Republican representative in history in the district. He was doing a commercial once that referred to his opponent. He wanted to say "Democrat Party" instead of what was written: "Democratic Party".
I told him to say "Democratic" because the other would be seen as an insult to them. He asked me, "Why do we care?" I answered: "Because you need their votes."
People reflexively defend when attacked. Don't start out with an attack and you might find your audience more receptive to listening to you.
Double predestination is a radical change in the view of God and Jesus call to repentance, free will, etc. etc.
I find the platonic God of the East where man must climb the chain of being and the split-level reconstruction of Aquinas to be a significant reorientation.
99% of Catholic theology was developed before Aquinas was born. East and Western Churches were identical for a thousand years. I've studied both East and West together and apart and been to Mass in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, equally comfortable in both. I use what you might call Eastern Orthodox sources for theology more than I do Western, because the Church grew from East to West, and that theology which would be solely Western doesn't include the primary theology of the Church. All the key early councils of the Church were East/West inclusive.
The differences between East and West are primarily rooted in language and culture not basic theology - who man is, who Christ is, who God is, what salvation is, etc. And once you look at the other side of learning to be Christian, praxis, the differences almost totally disappear.
Post a link to something by Cornelius Van Til?
Thanks for your reply.