@curiousdannii I heard my name mentioned :-) How do you do, curiousdanni? Good to meet you. I have enjoyed reading your posts. I appreciate the care you display in using theological and biblical terms as well as awareness of interpretation and historical issues: clean scholarly writing but yet not up in the air by tailoring yourself well to an intelligent believer who is not necessarily well versed in theology.

I grew up in a Reformed church without knowing it's Reformed until I discovered the different flavors of Protestanism many years after college. During college (in the USA), the usual evangelical-learning campus ministry made an impact on me, so I attended a mix of non-denominational churches & Presbyterian churches as I moved from one area to the other in the USA.

But I'm somewhat dissatisfied with certain aspects of Reformed theology although I still have high respect for it. C.S. Lewis's Anglicanism served as a bridge to learn Catholicism & Thomism to fill the gap, which is the tradition's richness of describing subjectively what happens inside one's mind, will, soul, and emotion when theological concepts like faith, grace, love, hope, fruits of the spirits, etc. are said to operate on a human person.

So theological anthropology, theories of virtues, interface between psychology and operations of the Holy Spirit, natural law & conscience, human nature & image of God (from the angle of the True, Good, Beautiful), and various philosophical construction of the human person are my main interests. I see different Christian traditions (as long as they are faithful to the apostolic tradition) as valid options, in the spirit of "Mere Christianity".

I'm persuaded that as long as we believe the right basics about God (like Trinity, dual nature of Jesus) from God's point of view what matters is not so much how we conceptualize soteriology, theories of authority/scripture, how God interfaces with us through sacraments, etc. but more how we respond to Him "being to being" and cooperate with Him on the path of sanctification. Hence my profile summary.

I enjoyed this site to expand my horizon as well as helping misguided souls so they have the right understanding of Christianity, i.e. set them on the right road and priorities. I'm particularly interested in 2nd temple Judaism and the early church: historical details of the eras, worldview, ancient literature and philosophy, social realities, etc. A 10-20 year goal is to have a good grasp that is scholarly respectable on the consciousness of the 2 generations before and after Jesus.

@GratefulDisciple Thank you for such a thorough introduction! It's great hearing the backgrounds of other people in the community

@GratefulDisciple I think if you're not uncomfortable with several aspects of Christian theology you can't have understood it adequately enough.

@GratefulDisciple Have you done any formal education in Bible/theology? That's not an era I really know a lot about, but I agree it's important

@curiousdannii In my earlier years I used to fret about having the "right" kind of theology as though my spiritual health depends on it. Now it's more to nurture spiritual health so my "shopping" of concepts have a practical purpose. I seriously see myself as "being in need" and God communicates his grace not through precision of doctrine (such as Reformed vs. Catholic) but through inward infusion and communion with others. Now I see theology as practical map and my concern is to find a good one.

@curiousdannii I didn't go to seminary, but by now I'm comfortable reading seminary thesis & dissertations, having studied in the leisure outside semester deadlines quite a few seminary textbooks (mainly in prolegomena & hermeneutics), and consuming reference material like the IVP Black Dictionary, enough to recognize errors and hidden assumptions in what people say. I see value in systematics not in their own right, but in understanding how God redeems and heals us (as a user).

@curiousdannii Yes, what I read from Geremia so far seem to support him as personally invested in sedevacantism indicated by how he seems to exclusively use material from pre-Vat II and has preference to older Catholic systematics. From outside looking in, I have great sympathy for them as the post Vat II church seems to lose her leadership in moral matters, very different from the Chesterton era.

Just read a great Q&A about why they object to Vat II and the ambiguity of the dogmatic status of the council.

On some level as a Protestant, I welcome it (because they now consider me as a separated brother), but after more than 25 years, the state of the Catholic church seems to worsen and veers away from her primary duty as Guardian of the Truth. Too accommodating, I think, very different than what Chesterton saw 100 years ago.

@GratefulDisciple Pope Francis has not helped; Benedict got criticized for being too traditional, and JP II was one of the longest serving popes ever. (I think only two in history had the chair for longer than he did) and he brought a major emphasis on Marian devotion with him.