This past week I've gotten caught up in a few Internet discussions, which usually means I'm not using my time as wisely as I possibly could.
The first is the typical "Roman Catholic hates Luther, cites Grisar and Denifle" but when scrutinized, has no idea what they're talking about. This was a Carm discussion (you may have to register to see it) which began here. I jumped in here. The discussion picks up again here, and my response is here, here and here. This last page is primarily our discussion. This is the usual tedium.
The second actually occurred on a blog I don't usually visit called, "Steadfast Lutherans." There was a recent post entitled, Sanctification: By Grace Alone. In the comment section, a man named Lloyd Cadle began almost immediately leaving pro-Roman Catholic comments, all the while not affirming his church affiliation. Mr. Cadle appeared to have an agenda that anyone reading the early church documents would become Roman Catholic or Orthodox. That is, the ECF's by an overwhelming consensus taught the same things Roman and Orthodox churches believe today. I challenged Mr, Cadle to apply his same standard to the modern Roman church. He appeared to be a zealous recent convert, because he avoided this question as much as possible, nor did he appear to have come across Newman's development hypothesis. There were two pages of comments (page 1) (page 2), until Lloyd last night said he had enough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Speaking of Steadfast Lutherans, have you followed the recent controversy we've had on sanctification? That may be one you want to catch up on.
Actually, I think I read some of your blog posts on it. I also have the recent Concordia publication, Friends of the Law.
I'm pleased to see you folks debate this subject. 10 years ago, it felt like it was me against Rome trying to prove Luther wasn't an antinoimian. I'm pleased to see so many Lutheran dealing with this issue.
James,
I am reading your back and forth @ http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=29083
Very well done.
Thanks Algo!
Hmm. This L. Cadle from '09?
The name rang a bell but just stumbled across this comment over at The (Kim) Riddleblog
I have read all of the commentary of Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism. I must have been born in the wrong era, as I prefer the 16th century theologians, or even older.
Pastor Kim is one of the few modern theologians worth reading, along with our Lutheran guys. (He is a real throw back to the good old days.)
November 24, 2009 | Unregistered Commenter Lloyd I. Cadle
Hmm. This L. Cadle from '09?
The name rang a bell but just stumbled across this comment over at The (Kim) Riddleblog
This may be the same person. I did not Google him, so thank you for this comment.
Mr. Cadle did give off the impression of being a relatively recent convert to Romanism, and if this is the same person, it would certainly confirm my suspicion.
Piecing things together from his comments, Mr. Cadle appears to maybe have been a Lutheran, until this:
"Anyway, just a little background; my brother was a non-denominationl Christian for about 23 years. He started an in-depth study of the Early Church Fathers, and in his studies attended a Coptic Orthodox church and became an expert in church history. Believe me on this, very few folks would ever want to debate him on church history. He eventually became Coptic Orthodox. So, that inspired me to study Early Church history, the Orthodox tradition and the Roman Catholic tradition (including reading all of the Catholic Catechism) and many other resources. Over the last couple of years, I have really been studying the Early Church Fathers."
It appears he lost enough debates with brother, and went into some form of Romanism relatively recently. This is probably why he didn't go "development of doctrine" in our discussion. He hasn't gotten there yet.
The basic error of both he and his brother is thinking that since the post-Reformation church doesn't doctrinally look like the early church, then an old ecclesiology like Romanism must be true, because it's...old and may have some similarities, at least on the surface.
However, as I tried to get Mr. Cadle to realize, the modern Roman church doesn't look like the early church either. Mr. Cadle seemed most unwilling to even take a moment to consider his double standard.
I'm not sure if he's following this blog entry, though he did appear to figure out I was Reformed somehow. I wish Mr. Cadle the best in his studies, and he's welcome to comment here. I'm simply asking him to use the same standards in evaluating his Romanism as he used to evaluate post-reformation churches.
RPV prompted me to search Mr. Cadle. Here's a comment from July 2012, showing that's he probably a recent convert:
_____________________
Lloyd I. Cadle | July 12, 2012 at 8:06 am | Reply
Hi Ken -
Dr. Michael Horton recently did several essay’s on why so many Protestant’s are becoming Roman Catholics.
The essay’s prompted me to research Roman theology for myself (just for educational purposes). I went out and bought the Roman Catholic catechism and have read most of it (with only a few pages left to read).
Most of the quotes in the Catechism are from St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.
It is also interesting to note that father Mitch Pacwa and many others on the Catholic station EWTN love and revere both St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Make of it what you will,
http://reflectionsbyken.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/not-the-only-protestant-who-appreciates-st-augustines-confessions/#comment-761
________________________
And also, this from No. 2012:
Lloyd I. Cadle
November 12, 2012 @ 12:30 PM
There is no better way than to go the Roman Catechism for what they teach. It is outlined very well so that you can get the answers to any questions about the teachings of Rome.
That is the way that I have always learned about all of the various traditions–by going to the source itself
http://heidelblog.net/2012/11/an-interesting-conversation-at-my-door/#comment-23601
_________________________________
Post a Comment