Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Apology to S&S

My apologies to Saint and Sinner for likely alerting DA to his series on DA’s book by my post here. I had no idea this would get DA so fired up that he would not only write about S&S in a new post, but move on to a whole diatribe against James White who has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

S&S has only written an introduction to his series and already the backlash begins. I’ll admit, I don’t think I have ever read through an entire DA post because they get so long, but I hope S&S can get through a few posts without being barraged by DA and others with what mostly amounts to off-topic rants. I would suggest that Catholics who would like to interact with S&S's posts actually come up with exegetical arguments without using the word "anti-Catholic" (I counted 9 uses of that term in DA's post).

Again S&S, I am looking forward to your series!

21 comments:

Carrie said...

My apologies are b/c DA has made no attempt at an argument but has just ascended into an “anti-Catholic” rant.

Triablogue (Gene) and TurretinFan have already summarized well.

Anonymous said...

Please.
Your being "upset" by references to "anti-catholic" is as genuine as an athiest's being upset by references to "anti-religious."

Carrie said...

Your being "upset" by references to "anti-catholic" is as genuine as an athiest's being upset by references to "anti-religious."

I’m not at all upset. I just don’t like when people are the target of a personal rant against their abilities and motives rather than an argument against the content of their posts.

What I see when the “anti-Catholic” label is thrown around is a lack of a true argument.

Saint and Sinner said...

Thanks for the plug, BTW.

Anonymous said...

What I see when the “anti-Catholic” label is properly applied (as it is in your case) is that it saves considerable time for those who take heed and would rather not spend too much time offering real conversation to what is effectively a polemic wall of willful ignorance.

What I see when the you complain about the “anti-Catholic” label is a means to dismiss the content of another's observation about your inability to focus on anythiong but your agenda, rather than the actual content of real conversation.

Every time an anti-Catholic zealot claims I worship Mary or that I think the Pope is Christ, when I know that I do not and plainly tell them so, I know that person cares not one bit about truth.

The shoe fits you. Why continue to pretend that it does not?

Buddy said...

Good point Carrie!
Whenever anyone calls me "anti-Semetic" I know it is because they can't refute that Isreal was behind 9/11!

---Mahmoud (Call me "Buddy") Ahmadinejad
New York, NY

Carrie said...

The shoe fits you. Why continue to pretend that it does not?

Thank you for the psychoanalysis.

'Dolph said...

Good point Carrie!
Whenever anyone calls me "anti-Semetic" I know it is psychoanalysis"

---A.Hitler
Someplace really Badden-badden

GeneMBridges said...

Every time an anti-Catholic zealot claims I worship Mary or that I think the Pope is Christ, when I know that I do not and plainly tell them so, I know that person cares not one bit about truth.

Of course, every time I hear an anti-Protestant zealot claim that I am my own Pope or that I think the Bible is God, whe I know that I do not and plainly tell them so, I know that person cares not one bit about truth.

I believe the problem with the label is that DA and his ilk don't realize that it cuts both ways. We are "anti-Catholic" but they are not "anti-Protestant."

Carrie, you do not believe that Dave Armstrong should have the opportunity to defend his work? Why are you apologizing? This should be a good debate.

Where, exactly, did he "defend his work" in that little love letter of his? What he did was rant about James White, which was utterly irrelevant to anything S&S wrote. It seems to me that he'd be better off to wait to see what S&S writes and then respond exegetically.

canceled said...

Good point 'Dolph!
Whenever anyone calls me "antiChristian" I know it is just anti-crazy-ism.

--Rosie O'DUHnnle,
On some other planet.

Anonymous said...

"Of course, every time I hear an anti-Protestant zealot claim that I am my own Pope or that I think the Bible is God, when I know that I do not and plainly tell them so, I know that person cares not one bit about truth."

Hey, he just might nearly GET it!

Atta boy, Gene! Now, connect the dots...

GeneMBridges said...

Well, unfortunately for you, the examples I provided regarding some Catholic's characterizations of Protestantism were obvious untruths - straw men. The disanalogy should be quite obvious. We don't create artifical distinctions regarding the authority of Scripture or our rule of faith as a whole, while Catholics have to resort to them in order to justify the practices you named.

1. In pagan societies, we see prayers to the dead and call it "ancestor worship." When Catholics do it, they call it , no excuse it, with the term"veneration." That's about as artificial a distinction as can be made, not to mention an obvious double standard.

Oh, if you think that's at all false, I'd point out that our Orthodox friend (and we know that Rome these days likes to think of Orthodoxy as being under the same umbrella) is over on Turretinfan's blog at this very moment defending his right to pray not just to any canonized person, but any dead (Orhodox) Christian whatsoever, including his own grandmother if need be...

2. It should go without saying that when you apply titles reserved for God and Christ to the Bishop of Rome, you're sending a particular message. If you don't like the characterization, then perhaps the problem is your behavior, not to mention the whole practice.

So, I get it alright. "AntiCatholics" feel free to take offense at these labels, which, while their accuracy may require some argumentation in support, have good reason, and they don't think of themselves at all as "antiProtestant" when offering criticisms that have no merit (pun intended) whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Ohhh---so close! too bad, Gene.

pilgrim said...

We are "anti-Catholic" but they are not "anti-Protestant."

That's the main issue--I once asked about this on a Non-ROman Catholic site, and so many RC's commented on it by making adhominem attacks it had to be shut down.

Bear in mind these are people who have never met me, and most had never read anything else I had ever written.

I did not make any claims about the RCC, nor did I make any disparaging remarks about it--all I did was ask why I was "anti-Catholic" if I spoke/wrote about why I disagreed with RCism (or in some cases never mentioned RCism, but wrote about areas that historic Protestantism and RCism strongly disagree), but they were not anti-Protestant when they went on and on with their strawmen of why the Reformation solas are wrong or worse.

I'm not tarring anybody here with that brush--but there are a lot of them out there--I have encountered them.

David Waltz said...

Hello Pilgram,

You posted:

>>We are "anti-Catholic" but they are not "anti-Protestant."

That's the main issue--I once asked about this on a Non-ROman Catholic site, and so many RC's commented on it by making adhominem attacks it had to be shut down.

Bear in mind these are people who have never met me, and most had never read anything else I had ever written.>>

Me: I am fundamentally “anti-Protestant”—in the historical sense. Catholic Christians have “protested” and continue to “protest” while remaining Catholic; my case against Protestant churches is a simple one: SCHISM.

>>I did not make any claims about the RCC, nor did I make any disparaging remarks about it--all I did was ask why I was "anti-Catholic" if I spoke/wrote about why I disagreed with RCism (or in some cases never mentioned RCism, but wrote about areas that historic Protestantism and RCism strongly disagree), but they were not anti-Protestant when they went on and on with their strawmen of why the Reformation solas are wrong or worse.>>

Me: Poor arguments abound, especially it seems on the internet. But with that said, it would be a huge mistake to move such weak arguments to the ‘front’ of Catholic apologetics. Personally, I would like to confront the ‘A’ team, and not some second rate ‘B’ or ‘C’ team.

>>I'm not tarring anybody here with that brush--but there are a lot of them out there--I have encountered them.>>

Me: I am quite sure that you have; and I bet it is as frustrating to you as it is to me.


Grace and peace,

David

pilgrim said...

The Protestant Church was not formed from Schism.
Remember Luther was excommunicated.
He didn't leave on his own, he was forced out--a significant difference.

Later Reformers "Left" in one sense, but how they see it is that the "official" RCC was the schismatic. They had left the truth. They saw a continuity in their movement, not a new one.

I would agree.

As to the A team and B team remark--I agree, I would rather deal with the best, and to deal with those arguments--however there is much disagreement among RC's on who is the A team. Some tout Scott Hahn, but I find him lightwieght, and his writings misleading--I will give him the benefit of the doubt that it is not intentional, but that's not always easy. Other RC's want nothing to do with him, but most I encounter don't seem to care either way. In your mind, who makes up the RC A team?

David Waltz said...

Hi Pilgrim,

Thanks for responding. You posted:

>>The Protestant Church was not formed from Schism.
Remember Luther was excommunicated.
He didn't leave on his own, he was forced out--a significant difference.>>

Me: He was “forced out” for refusing to abandon his novel teachings. Further, attempts were made on the Catholic side for Luther to return, all of which were refused.

>>Later Reformers "Left" in one sense, but how they see it is that the "official" RCC was the schismatic. They had left the truth. They saw a continuity in their movement, not a new one.>>

Me: Apart from the CoJCoLDS, I know of no Protestant major sect which does not make the above claim in some form.

>>As to the A team and B team remark--I agree, I would rather deal with the best, and to deal with those arguments--however there is much disagreement among RC's on who is the A team. Some tout Scott Hahn, but I find him lightwieght, and his writings misleading--I will give him the benefit of the doubt that it is not intentional, but that's not always easy. Other RC's want nothing to do with him, but most I encounter don't seem to care either way. In your mind, who makes up the RC A team?>>

Me: Scott Hahn is a ‘popular’ apologist; and though ‘popular’ apologetics certainly has its place if one truly wishes to engage in cutting-edge apologetics, one must proceed to higher levels.

As for the “RC A team”, I think one must turn to our true scholars, many of whom are specialists in very narrow fields of study, which in and of themselves would not be properly classified as apologetics, but can, and are adapted into the field of apologetics.

But on a personal note, I do not limit the “A” team to just RC scholars; rather, I feel it is very important to incorporate the best minds in any given field of study, no matter what their respective communion may be (though at the same time understanding that certain presuppositions are usually attached to one’s affiliation that must be factored in).

By way of example, I shall provide my ‘short’ list of recommended resources concerning the doctrine of justification:

Justification by Faith: in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue by Anthony N.S. Lane

Iustitia Dei by Alister McGrath (3 editions)

Righteousness In The New Testament by John Reumann

Justification by Hans Küng (2 editions)

Judgement & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul by Chris VanLandingham

Justification by Faith edited by Anderson, Murphy, and Burgess (vol. VII in the Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue 10 volume series)

Justification – What’s at Stake in the Current Debates edited by Husbands & Treier

Rereading Paul Together – Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on Justification edited by David Aune

“Justification” an online essay by Fr. Alvin Kimmel http://pontifications.wordpress.com/justification/

And lastly, “The Meaning of Dikaioo”, a “B+” (grin) essay in two parts by Pastor Gerald Hiestand http://iustificare.blogspot.com/2007/03/meaning-of-dikaioo.html ; http://iustificare.blogspot.com/2007/03/meaning-of-dikaioo-part-2.html#comments


Grace and peace,

David

Anonymous said...

"The Protestant Church was not formed from Schism.
Remember Luther was excommunicated."

Luther's excommunication did not compell the founding of a rival church. Were all excomunicants founders of their own "reformation" movement? The Church might have booted him out of full fellowship, but the actual schism was his. This is not to say that the Catholic leaders of the day were blameless. The Reformation was a child of Catholocism, whether any of us want to admit it or not.

Carrie said...

Justification by Hans Küng (2 editions)

So we should believe Kung's viewpoints on justification but not on papal inafallibility? How can he be trusted on one issue but not another? How many of the authors you listed are in the magesterium?

Again David, you talk of "cutting-edge Catholic thought" but why would there be such a thing in a system that maintains they have (and need) an infallible authority to guide them in faith and morals.

Don't you see how it is odd that all of your "beliefs" in Catholic justification are based on theologians (some of whom have been stripped of their status in the Church like Kung) rather than on your own "infallible" magesterium?

You never did answer me before with regards to "cutting-edge Catholic thought" on justification - does that mean you still don't know how exactly you are made right with God?

Anonymous said...

"The Church might have booted him out of full fellowship, but the actual schism was his."

That is an interesting point. Most people (many Catholics among them) incorrectly think that excommunication means to be "kicked out of the Church," or to be removed from a state of grace, as if excommunicated people are damned if they die in that state. Neither is true, and as a Catholic Priest himself, Luther would have known that.

See http://eloisvoice.blogspot.com/ for some commentary from a Catholic Priest to Catholics on the meaning and purpose of excommunication.

E i E said...

"does that mean you still don't know how exactly you are made right with God?"

I'm unsure whether this is a related question or not, but I'll pose it here:
Must one know exactly how one is made right with God to be made right with God?