I've been an on and off member of the CARM discussion boards for over 10 years. CARM stands for "Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry." I signed on in the late 1990's to discuss aspects of Reformed theology. I think I was running on a 28.8 modem back then using a prehistoric windows program.
It was there I began engaging Roman Catholicism, I don't remember exactly why, but I do recall the first time a Roman Catholic quoted Luther to me, and I actually had the book in question, looked up the reference, and said... "Hey, wait a minute, that's not what was being said, in context."
I'm not sure why, but every so often the CARM management decides to delete all the forums, and start over with new software. In this age of techno-geekery, I can't believe there isn't a software that will update the discussion boards without going tabula rasa. This has always been my main gripe against CARM. I'm typically too lazy to go and save whatever I've posted, and I discovered that the archives already have an automatic delete set up.
So this morning I spent a few minutes trying to retrieve some of the posts before extermination. I've been busy elsewhere, and I hadn't visited CARM for a while. Here were a few parting chuckles I found:
"Swan and Keating. They are conjoined twins with only a theological membrane separating them. The debating tactics and modestly self-deprecating "victory speeches" of both are too cute to be taken seriously."
Ah, well, now that was mean! The sad part is I think the RC saying this confused me with another guy named James. I rarely give a vistory speech, because facts are facts. Here's the other great tidbit of Romanist kindness:
I understand how difficult this question is for you. After all, it is exactly this question which two weeks ago or so caused James Swan to “drop out” of this dialogue. He also was accused of not being willing to admit to his personal opinions about the NT Canon. Are you willing to “fess up”, and then face the subsequent pesky “follow-up” questions?
It was the follow-up questions that James was so terrified of and I understand why. Are you more bold than James? He at least understands that he cannot reveal his personal opinions on the matter and retain any credibility. He has thought out his position and does not want it to be scrutinized. Have you thought out yours several moves ahead as well?
I registered for the new CARM boards a month or so ago, but after 10- 15 years of watching everything get dumped every 2 or 3 years, I'm tempted to simply say goodbye.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
I wonder why remote psychoanalysis via the Internet is so popular.
(insert Freudian explanation for the popularity here)
Hey, I cut my teeth on the "Spiral argument" on RC authority and Matthew 16 on the CARM boards in the latter part of the 90s. That was also when there were not 50 millions people on there.
That was also where I first heard of Christadelphians. They made Rome's allegorical use of Scripture appear strictly literal.
Hi James:
We both agree that context is critical, and being the author of the comment below that you posted on this blog, I guess it falls to me to explain the exact context and the circumstances under which it was made.
“I understand how difficult this question is for you. After all, it is exactly this question which two weeks ago or so caused James Swan to “drop out” of this dialogue. He also was accused of not being willing to admit to his personal opinions about the NT Canon. Are you willing to “fess up”, and then face the subsequent pesky “follow-up” questions?
It was the follow-up questions that James was so terrified of and I understand why.” Tim MD on the CARM “Luther” thread.
As you know there is some history here which is important to review. On that thread, where you contributed 100 posts, I practically begged you to offer your opinion of Luther’s “authority”, meaning whether he was “right” in God’s Eyes to “reformulate” several dozen accepted Christian Doctrines. You steadfastly avoided doing so, and then in a semi-public message to me you said the following:
“I tend to approach discussions by first evaluating evidence and contexts, and then voicing my opinion. The contexts and facts determine my position......
I enjoy research. I would much rather discuss a text than simply voice my opinions....I do have my opinions on Luther's authority claims, but I don't see the value of posting them if we can't even agree on the factual contexts being used.” James Swan 10/4/09
I fully understand that you might prefer research over offering your personal opinions on these (risky) subjects. However, that same “preference” NEVER seems to inhibit you from offering your opinions about the opinions of others. It seems to me that you prefer to criticize rather than offering concrete alternatives.
I recognize that you have a lot of knowledge about Luther, so what am I supposed to think when you claim to have an opinion about Luther’s actual “authority” but “prefer” not to offer it up for scrutiny, while at the same time being interested enough in the subject to post 100 posts? I think you already know what I think of that because we have been over this numerous times.
With that as the historical context, the actual comments that you republished on your blog had to do with another instance of your “preference” to avoid revealing your opinions.
Recently on CARM you defended Luther’s criticism of the New Testament Canon and his “right” to question the “Inspired Status” of 4 NT books. I asked you to be more specific, and offered you four ways that you could justify that claim. However, you recognized that each of them were going to reveal more about your position than you would like so you “bailed”. If you didn’t like my 4 alternatives, of course you could have explained exactly and specifically you could defend Luther on the matter, but you did not.
My criticism is based on your “preference” to abstain from revealing your opinions, while feeling perfectly “comfortable” criticizing those of others. You can redeem yourself though by revealing your opinion of Luther’s authority and explaining how you would specifically defend Luther’s criticism of the NT Canon. Your choice.
Anyway, I hope you appreciate the context.
God Bless You James, Tim
Tim said:
We both agree that context is critical, and being the author of the comment below that you posted on this blog, I guess it falls to me to explain the exact context and the circumstances under which it was made.
Tell you what Tim, here's a present for you. This is a link to the portion of your Luther-mega link in which you made your comment. I've saved the page on my server, so even when CARM deletes it, it will still be there. Now the other pages will still work, eventually, they probably won't. But the one page is there, immortalized for all to see.
Tim Said:
“I understand how difficult this question is for you. After all, it is exactly this question which two weeks ago or so caused James Swan to “drop out” of this dialogue. He also was accused of not being willing to admit to his personal opinions about the NT Canon. Are you willing to “fess up”, and then face the subsequent pesky “follow-up” questions?
It was the follow-up questions that James was so terrified of and I understand why.” Tim MD on the CARM “Luther” thread.
Terrified? You've never even met me. How is it possible you know that it was out of sheer terror that I chose not to respond to you? Could it possibly have been because of the followings:
1) I had just begun my series of research into DA's book (I started that on Feb. 13 via Steve Ray's book, my last CARM comment to you was on Feb. 15, the very day I posted the second post in this series. Those posts are not written stream-of-consciousness and thrown together in a fury like your CARM posts are. They take time and research. The majority of time you appear to take with your CARM rants appears to be spent on picking different colors of texts. My schedule limits my time, so whatever I deem important is what what I spend my free time. Blogs, Internet, research, discussions, etc., are a hobby for me, not my life.
2) In my last CARM post to you I stated, "Thank you. By affirming this, you don't have any valid points." Tim, did you catch the second sentence? I don't think you have any valid points on this issue because you affirmed "at least in one respect, Catholic Theologians were allowed to “discuss” the contents of the canon until the time of Trent." Why then would I thrust myself into dealing with whatever chain of mish-mash in different colors you threw together? I was being completely consistent.
3) Both #1 & #2 combined, along with the fact here on this very blog in a comment box I responded to you by saying:
Tim's rhetoric, ability to produce excessive amounts of words on multiple subjects, spurious logic, insulting demeanor, and inability to read sources with coherence, has lead all of us to shake the dust from our feet, and move on. In the summer time, I attempted once again to interact with Tim. Because he writes such long rambling posts, I attempted to slow him down, and respond to him 100 words at a time, to at least give him one last try at rational dialog. That aspect of the discussion begins here. When Tim wasn't able to hide behind excessive amounts of words, his argumentation was easily exposed as ridiculous. He then went back to posting excessive amounts of rhetoric, insults, and obfuscation.
In fact Tim, I was quite finished with your CARM thread. I ventured back to your CARM albatross one last time because you snipped some of my words from another CARM post from a different board, but left out a significant part. It wasn't a "Hi Tim, I back." It was a "Tim cited me partially to present a distorted image of what I said" return- here's what I actually said.
-continued-
-continued-
Tim said:
Recently on CARM you defended Luther’s criticism of the New Testament Canon and his “right” to question the “Inspired Status” of 4 NT books. I asked you to be more specific, and offered you four ways that you could justify that claim. However, you recognized that each of them were going to reveal more about your position than you would like so you “bailed”. If you didn’t like my 4 alternatives, of course you could have explained exactly and specifically you could defend Luther on the matter, but you did not.
I didn't even read your 4 claims, and I still haven't, not out of fear, but because as I stated before, Romanist arguments on this issue are meaningless. Why? Because whatever Luther, Cajetan, or Erasmus said on the canon was previous to Trent. In a Romanist worldview, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the Magisterium provides infallibly certainty on an issue, and that previous to dogmatic declaration there is a freedom of theological speculation, and then try to go backwards and chastise someone's view. Those who do this, like yourself, show bias, not wisdom, nor consistency.
That's classic Protestant Apologetics at it's most arrogant and revealing.
Someone says that you have painted yourself into a corner and explains specifically and exactly how, then offers you four possibilities to defend that position, and then you don't even read them. Or possibly CLAIM not to have read them.
In addition, you STILL have not offered up the opinion (which you claim to have) on Luther's "authority".
Rather than actually dealing with "Roman agruments", you simply PROCLAIM that they are invalid. Marty would be proud because that is exactly the way that he dealt with His opponents and He did so also with no apparent shame.
Why do I even bother?
Tim, if I might add something:
Mr. Swan seems to bring up a valid point when it comes to Luther's questioning of the NT canon happening prior to Trent. I have wondered that myself. Why, absent a dogmatic proclamation on the canon, would it matter if anyone (Luther, Cajetan etc..) questioned the canon? I admit that I am unfaniliar with the full context of the discussion between the two of you. But it's a good question, and a good point. How would a RC apologist answer that?
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your response.
Andrew said...
“Tim, if I might add something:
Mr. Swan seems to bring up a valid point when it comes to Luther's questioning of the NT canon happening prior to Trent. I have wondered that myself. Why, absent a dogmatic proclamation on the canon, would it matter if anyone (Luther, Cajetan etc..) questioned the canon? I admit that I am unfaniliar with the full context of the discussion between the two of you. But it's a good question, and a good point. How would a RC apologist answer that?”
My response:
I guess I am the only one who is familiar with my discussion with James. He isn’t. Seriously, the guy is SO GOOD at this “stuff” that he can determine that arguments are invalid without even reading them.
I wasn’t going to bother posting the basics of the discussion because as you know there really wasn’t one. But here goes.
James defends Luther’s questioning of the NT canon, by claiming that “other Catholics” of the same period did also, AS IF any of them forged off and developed a brand new version of Christianity. His basic argument was that Luther was within his “rights” to argue the canon UNTIL Trent.
However, in this, he painted himself into a corner, unintentionally admitting that to him (James) the canon is not yet closed. In fact James Himself questions the NT canon or at least a small portion of it and does so from only his own opinion.
In doing so, he severely impugns his own “authority” to argue FROM Scripture. After all, unless two parties work from exactly the same Infallible canon, they really are not working from the same exact text in total. As long as someone (as does James) puts their personal opinion about even a small portion of the canon over that of the rest of Christianity, they are in essence admitting that they really don’t know for sure what the canon really is. They can claim that it is only a “very small portion” but any “doubt” about ANY of it is an admission that ALL of it could really be in question.
In reality Sola Scriptura without a fixed and agreed upon canon is even more problematic than it is with one. As long as the individual can determine, for themselves, what is and what is not “Inspired” they reduce the level of “certainty” about EVERYTHING. Of course many Protestants have no problem with that at all, that is until you begin to analyze where that “takes you” exactly.
I think that the idea that the canon might not be “closed” but still “open for discussion” is an abomination. It demeans Christ in that it presumes that He could not have come up with a “better way” to know, with certainty, what He Taught.
The idea that nothing is more “holy” than the individual Personal Opinion has led Protestantism to where it is today, which is a massively confusing doctrinal mess.
By the way, the reason that James steadfastly refuses to admit to his opinions regarding Luther’s “authority” is because he does NOT agree that Luther had as much authority as he claimed. James “prefers” somebody else, possibly someone like Calvin and possibly actually Himself. Once you admit that Luther could have been wrong about something, something important like the nature of the Eucharist, then it follows that he could have also been wrong about other things, like Sola Scriptura and Salvation. Of course those presumptions cannot be questioned, and most of the time, cannot even be discussed.
James does not like to offer his opinions, lest they be challenged or scrutinized and he doesn’t like to be reminded of this tendency. He very much prefers to criticize the opinions of others.
Anyway, you asked......
God Bless You Andrew, Tim
That's classic Protestant Apologetics at it's most arrogant and revealing.
Frankly, posting that I was "so terrified" of your convoluted multi- colored mish mash is arrogance. You don't even know me, yet somehow you concluded I was terrified of your posts. How about I play the same Tim MD game: You were scared when I gave you a word limit because you couldn't hide behind excessive rambling posts. You were exposed as having worthless arguments by our little controlled dialog. You were terrified and ran away back to those long meandering multi -colored fantasies you compose, and I can see why. See Tim? I know that little game.
Someone says that you have painted yourself into a corner and explains specifically and exactly how, then offers you four possibilities to defend that position, and then you don't even read them. Or possibly CLAIM not to have read them.
Nope, didn't read them. I found your post this morning when I searched for my CARM posts. I told you you didn't have a point, and that was it.
In addition, you STILL have not offered up the opinion (which you claim to have) on Luther's "authority".
LOL, like a corrupt church was going to grant a person "authority" to Reform her. Explain how John the Baptist had authority to proclaim the coming of the Lord with your Papacy, or was the Jewish leadership supposed to ordain him so he could do so?
Rather than actually dealing with "Roman arguments", you simply PROCLAIM that they are invalid. Marty would be proud because that is exactly the way that he dealt with His opponents and He did so also with no apparent shame. Why do I even bother?
Actually Tim, it's your arguments that I think are worthless. I spent more than enough time trying to reason with you over the last year.
I guess I am the only one who is familiar with my discussion with James. He isn’t. Seriously, the guy is SO GOOD at this “stuff” that he can determine that arguments are invalid without even reading them.
Once Tim admitted "Catholic Theologians were allowed to discuss the contents of the canon until the time of Trent" The ballgame was over. In fact, if Tim's alleged arguments are anything like the nonsense he just posted, I'm glad I didn't waste my time with them.
I wasn’t going to bother posting the basics of the discussion because as you know there really wasn’t one. But here goes.
We don't need that information. Tim. Who cares what you weren't going to do?
James defends Luther’s questioning of the NT canon, by claiming that “other Catholics” of the same period did also, AS IF any of them forged off and developed a brand new version of Christianity.
Even if this were so (i.e. new version of christianity), show me where in the Romanist rule book previous to Trent that what Tim says was an official Romanist rule. It isn't. It's Tim's personal interpretation of Romanism and history.
His basic argument was that Luther was within his “rights” to argue the canon UNTIL Trent.
Hey Tim got something right. That is, if one uses a Romanist paradigm, this is true. Even Robert Sungenis admitted this, and he's a bit more credible than Tim MD.
However, in this, he painted himself into a corner, unintentionally admitting that to him (James) the canon is not yet closed.
I did no such thing. I've never stated that I don't believe the canon is closed. Where Tim got this from...who knows? He showed up here asking when my book was coming out a little while back, and I had no idea what he was talking about.
However, the joke is on Tim, because the Romanist canon is not closed: simply contact Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta and ask him why a book was passed over in silence (that is, it's canonicty wasn't determined one way or the other). If book is still canonically undetermined, then it is possible Rome's canon is passing over a canonical book.
In fact James Himself questions the NT canon or at least a small portion of it and does so from only his own opinion.
LOL, I have no idea what Tim is talking about. I don't question the canonicty of any of the New Testament books.
In doing so, he severely impugns his own “authority” to argue FROM Scripture.
If Tim means me, then he's making an asserion based on a faulty presupposition.
-continued-
After all, unless two parties work from exactly the same Infallible canon, they really are not working from the same exact text in total.
Tell that to all those previous to Luther that denied the apocrypha, or even those in the early church that read 1 Clement in an authoritative way.
As long as someone (as does James) puts their personal opinion about even a small portion of the canon over that of the rest of Christianity, they are in essence admitting that they really don’t know for sure what the canon really is.
I'm not sure why I'm the subject, but it would be funny to see Tim explain this to one of Rome's leading scholars, Cardinal Cajetan, during the 16th century.
They can claim that it is only a “very small portion” but any “doubt” about ANY of it is an admission that ALL of it could really be in question.
Tell that to Jerome, Gregory the Great, and a host of others who doubted all or part of the apcryopha.
In reality Sola Scriptura without a fixed and agreed upon canon is even more problematic than it is with one.
In reality, Tim is completely confused. Protestantism, even some its most liberal branches, have a consistent canon. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any local Protestant church within 100 miles of me that doubts the canonicty of any of the New Testament books, or the correct Old Testament (not the Romanist version).
As long as the individual can determine, for themselves, what is and what is not “Inspired” they reduce the level of “certainty” about EVERYTHING.
So, explain to me exactly how Jesus, Peter, Paul, or anyone living before Jesus was born had certainty of what comprised the Hebrew Bible. Are you REALLY going to argue such a faulty position? When the Lord chastised the Sadducees in Matthew 22, he stated they were in error because they did not know the Scriptures. He further states, "have you not read what God said to you?" (Mt. 22:31). The Lord Jesus clearly held these men responsible for knowing and understanding the Scriptures. Were the Sadducees supposed to respond, "How could we? We did not have an infallible interpreter of the Bible!"
Of course many Protestants have no problem with that at all, that is until you begin to analyze where that “takes you” exactly.
I'm Reformed. We don't argue about what is, or what is not inspired.
I think that the idea that the canon might not be “closed” but still “open for discussion” is an abomination. It demeans Christ in that it presumes that He could not have come up with a “better way” to know, with certainty, what He Taught.
Point your finger at Trent for not closing the canon.
The idea that nothing is more “holy” than the individual Personal Opinion has led Protestantism to where it is today, which is a massively confusing doctrinal mess.
I suggest you do 2 things: 1) look up all the posts on my blog that are part of my blueprint for anarchy series. 2) Contact Rome and ask them to infallibly define the Bible so Romanists can agree on what the text says.
By the way, the reason that James steadfastly refuses to admit to his opinions regarding Luther’s “authority” is because he does NOT agree that Luther had as much authority as he claimed. James “prefers” somebody else, possibly someone like Calvin and possibly actually Himself.
You don't know me, nor why I do what I do. Luther was a preacher and a theologian. He had authority as both, in that he demonstrated and proved his abiliites. He was a Reformer in a corrupt church, which history proves.
Once you admit that Luther could have been wrong about something, something important like the nature of the Eucharist, then it follows that he could have also been wrong about other things, like Sola Scriptura and Salvation.
-continued-
LOL, another rediculous argument. 1) When I first dialoged with you, I proved you wrong here. Using your argument, it follows you could be wrong about all your Luther diatribes. 2) You do realize, at one time Romanists had more sacraments than you do today, why is your number right, and theirs wrong?
Of course those presumptions cannot be questioned, and most of the time, cannot even be discussed.
Tim, your points are simply logically bogus.
James does not like to offer his opinions, lest they be challenged or scrutinized and he doesn’t like to be reminded of this tendency. He very much prefers to criticize the opinions of others.
LOL, Tim.
Hi James,
James Swan said...
That's classic Protestant Apologetics at it's most arrogant and revealing.
Frankly, posting that I was "so terrified" of your convoluted multi- colored mish mash is arrogance. You don't even know me, yet somehow you concluded I was terrified of your posts. How about I play the same Tim MD game: You were scared when I gave you a word limit because you couldn't hide behind excessive rambling posts. You were exposed as having worthless arguments by our little controlled dialog. You were terrified and ran away back to those long meandering multi -colored fantasies you compose, and I can see why. See Tim? I know that little game.
Tim in response: Gee James, if I didn’t have faith in your ability to behave in a Christian manner, I might think that this thing has become, at least to you, very personal. Come to think of it, it seems to me that it became so for you over a year ago. Luther was always so prone to denounce the belief rather than the individual. Right? Again, I think He would be proud.
In my opinion you limited the word count because you wanted to limit the dialogue. You knew that your “best chance” would be to limit the amount that I was “allowed” to contribute to the conversation. I fully recognize my own verboseness but won’t apologize for having more to say in defense of my position than you do. I also won’t apologize for excessively justifying my positions when you admit that you have no intention to reveal yours.
Just like Luther and just like most of the “lesser” Protestant Apologists, you have a need to control the dialogue by whatever means possible. Control the content, the word count, define “correctly of course the context, etc. Whatever is necessary in order to avoid TRULY defending your position (as if you are prone to identifying it).
Someone says that you have painted yourself into a corner and explains specifically and exactly how, then offers you four possibilities to defend that position, and then you don't even read them. Or possibly CLAIM not to have read them.
James's original again: Nope, didn't read them. I found your post this morning when I searched for my CARM posts. I told you you didn't have a point, and that was it.
Tim: That’s is exactly how Luther would have handled it too. Rather than deal with the point, just pronounce it to be invalid and expect everyone to fall into line. Classic. Arrogant, presumptuous and disrespectful but then I would suggest that that might be why you admire Luther so much.
In addition, you STILL have not offered up the opinion (which you claim to have) on Luther's "authority".
James: LOL, like a corrupt church was going to grant a person "authority" to Reform her. Explain how John the Baptist had authority to proclaim the coming of the Lord with your Papacy, or was the Jewish leadership supposed to ordain him so he could do so?
Wait a minute. Is this anything more than another refusal to reveal an opinion that you have already admitted to having? Are we supposed to be fooled by this slight of hand? You admitted to having that opinion and your “preference” about not revealing them is in itself “revealing”.
Tim's response: Rather than actually dealing with "Roman arguments", you simply PROCLAIM that they are invalid. Marty would be proud because that is exactly the way that he dealt with His opponents and He did so also with no apparent shame. Why do I even bother?
James: Actually Tim, it's your arguments that I think are worthless. I spent more than enough time trying to reason with you over the last year.
James, I was also involved in those discussion with you and I have a “slightly” different take. It always seemed to me that you were, rather than dialoguing with me, PRONOUNCING TO me. Again Luther would be proud in that that is EXACTLY how He dealt with his opponents.
“His work on the Bible translation makes plain that Luther was more than an unshakably certain Reformer. His claim to being the first called to the office of preacher of the Gospel was something he never allowed to be challenged; he saw his experience as the Christian experience, and his long search led him to a truth that inspired his contemporaries with new goals. Luther lived at a time when truth was still indivisible, and the “Evangelist” was firmly convinced that he alone represented the truth. The claim brought him the reputation of being a loner. He champanioned the cause of the weak and the layman, but among theologians he tolerated only listeners and disciplines.” Oberman pg 307-8
Now James, I am CERTAIN that, according to you, I have the “context” of this quote “wrong”. The only thing I am not certain about is, exactly and specifically HOW. I am sure that you will provide the details. To me, as terrible as I am on the “context thing”, it seems to me that Oberman, a Protestant by the way, is indicating that Luther was fairly dictatorial in his discussions with other Theologians. In other words, he was not exactly capable of dealing with the arguments of his peers, but was much more prone to dismiss them with a wave of his hand.
Should I point out that you have again failed to address my comments on Luther’s criticism of the Canon or that you have again failed to reveal your opinion of Luther’s “authority”. Or are you getting tired of hearing about that?
Seriously James, it doesn’t appear to me that you appreciate my comments here on your Pop Apologetics Blog all that much. But if I didn’t show up once in while and spice things up a little bit, who would contribute anything much, other than you?
The reason that I wander in here from time to time is that I find this to be an excellent place to learn about the kinds of things that the “defenders” of Luther believe need to be swept under the carpet. I only wish that in your “defense” of Luther you would focus more on what you personally believe to be true rather than criticizing the beliefs of others. That would make this a more “target rich environment” (Maverick, from “Top Gun”), but then you know that don’t you?
Seriously, say whatever you want. But as long as you dismiss the arguments of others without dealing with them, your position will transparent to those who are really looking for answers and at the evidence.
As long as your opinions about Luther’s actual “authority” remain unrevealed, it seems to me that you have no “right” to criticize the opinions of others on the same subject. Furthermore, I did notice that you failed to deal with my comments on WHY, specifically and exactly (of course), you do not want to reveal those opinions. Was that an oversight or what?
You know James, all of these discussion with you are NOT much fun. They would be much more so for me at least, IF you would just be, at least somewhat honest about what you really think. But then that wouldn’t be as much fun for you, would it?
Hi James,
James Swan said...
That's classic Protestant Apologetics at it's most arrogant and revealing.
Frankly, posting that I was "so terrified" of your convoluted multi- colored mish mash is arrogance. You don't even know me, yet somehow you concluded I was terrified of your posts. How about I play the same Tim MD game: You were scared when I gave you a word limit because you couldn't hide behind excessive rambling posts. You were exposed as having worthless arguments by our little controlled dialog. You were terrified and ran away back to those long meandering multi -colored fantasies you compose, and I can see why. See Tim? I know that little game.
Tim in response: Gee James, if I didn’t have faith in your ability to behave in a Christian manner, I might think that this thing has become, at least to you, very personal. Come to think of it, it seems to me that it became so for you over a year ago. Luther was always so prone to denounce the belief rather than the individual. Right? Again, I think He would be proud.
In my opinion you limited the word count because you wanted to limit the dialogue. You knew that your “best chance” would be to limit the amount that I was “allowed” to contribute to the conversation. I fully recognize my own verboseness but won’t apologize for having more to say in defense of my position than you do. I also won’t apologize for excessively justifying my positions when you admit that you have no intention to reveal yours.
Just like Luther and just like most of the “lesser” Protestant Apologists, you have a need to control the dialogue by whatever means possible. Control the content, the word count, define “correctly of course the context, etc. Whatever is necessary in order to avoid TRULY defending your position (as if you are prone to identifying it).
Someone says that you have painted yourself into a corner and explains specifically and exactly how, then offers you four possibilities to defend that position, and then you don't even read them. Or possibly CLAIM not to have read them.
James's original again: Nope, didn't read them. I found your post this morning when I searched for my CARM posts. I told you you didn't have a point, and that was it.
Tim: That’s is exactly how Luther would have handled it too. Rather than deal with the point, just pronounce it to be invalid and expect everyone to fall into line. Classic. Arrogant, presumptuous and disrespectful but then I would suggest that that might be why you admire Luther so much.
In addition, you STILL have not offered up the opinion (which you claim to have) on Luther's "authority".
James: LOL, like a corrupt church was going to grant a person "authority" to Reform her. Explain how John the Baptist had authority to proclaim the coming of the Lord with your Papacy, or was the Jewish leadership supposed to ordain him so he could do so?
Wait a minute. Is this anything more than another refusal to reveal an opinion that you have already admitted to having? Are we supposed to be fooled by this slight of hand? You admitted to having that opinion and your “preference” about not revealing them is in itself “revealing”.
Tim's response: Rather than actually dealing with "Roman arguments", you simply PROCLAIM that they are invalid. Marty would be proud because that is exactly the way that he dealt with His opponents and He did so also with no apparent shame. Why do I even bother?
James (again): Actually Tim, it's your arguments that I think are worthless. I spent more than enough time trying to reason with you over the last year.
Tim: James, I was also involved in those discussion with you and I have a “slightly” different take. It always seemed to me that you were, rather than dialoguing with me, PRONOUNCING TO me. Again Luther would be proud in that that is EXACTLY how He dealt with his opponents.
“His work on the Bible translation makes plain that Luther was more than an unshakably certain Reformer. His claim to being the first called to the office of preacher of the Gospel was something he never allowed to be challenged; he saw his experience as the Christian experience, and his long search led him to a truth that inspired his contemporaries with new goals. Luther lived at a time when truth was still indivisible, and the “Evangelist” was firmly convinced that he alone represented the truth. The claim brought him the reputation of being a loner. He champanioned the cause of the weak and the layman, but among theologians he tolerated only listeners and disciplines.” Oberman pg 307-8
Now James, I am CERTAIN that, according to you, I have the “context” of this quote “wrong”. The only thing I am not certain about is, exactly and specifically HOW. I am sure that you will provide the details. To me, as terrible as I am on the “context thing”, it seems to me that Oberman, a Protestant by the way, is indicating that Luther was fairly dictatorial in his discussions with other Theologians. In other words, he was not exactly capable of dealing with the arguments of his peers, but was much more prone to dismiss them with a wave of his hand.
Should I point out that you have again failed to address my comments on Luther’s criticism of the Canon or that you have again failed to reveal your opinion of Luther’s “authority”. Or are you getting tired of hearing about that?
Seriously James, it doesn’t appear to me that you appreciate my comments here on your Pop Apologetics Blog all that much. But if I didn’t show up once in while and spice things up a little bit, who would contribute anything much, other than you?
The reason that I wander in here from time to time is that I find this to be an excellent place to learn about the kinds of things that the “defenders” of Luther believe need to be swept under the carpet. I only wish that in your “defense” of Luther you would focus more on what you personally believe to be true rather than criticizing the beliefs of others. That would make this a more “target rich environment” (Maverick, from “Top Gun”), but then you know that don’t you?
Seriously, say whatever you want. But as long as you dismiss the arguments of others without dealing with them, your position will transparent to those who are really looking for answers and at the evidence.
As long as your opinions about Luther’s actual “authority” remain unrevealed, it seems to me that you have no “right” to criticize the opinions of others on the same subject. Furthermore, I did notice that you failed to deal with my comments on WHY, specifically and exactly (of course), you do not want to reveal those opinions. Was that an oversight or what?
You know James, all of these discussion with you are NOT much fun. They would be much more so for me at least, IF you would just be, at least somewhat honest about what you really think. But then that wouldn’t be as much fun for you, would it?
One last comment. Are you aware how difficult it is on this Pop Apolgetics Blog to have a decent dialogue, meaning to respond point by point to the comments of others? Is that by design or what?
Anyway I fully recongize that you have no intention of revealing your true opinions on these issues and am perfectly willing to drop the matter for the time being, in that, for my purposes, this is pretty much a waste of time. Your move.
By the way, if you are not "terrified" at the prospect of revealing your true opinions(s) about Luther's "authority" then WHY not reveal them. If you are so opposed to the word "terrified" then what term would you prefer? (Not that I expect an answer to this either).
I am fully willing to let this drop for now if you are. You obviosuly have no intention of addressing my actual comments and there is no doubt that our swords will cross again, probably sooner rather than later. As long as I cannot get you to admit to your opinons, other than as an example of the disingenuious nature of Protestant Apologitics, this is going nowhere. Your choice. As I am sure you realize, I do have more to say on the subject, or not.
Tim in response: Gee James, if I didn’t have faith in your ability to behave in a Christian manner, I might think that this thing has become, at least to you, very personal.
Well, Tim, it is truth that your posts are convoluted multi-colored mish mash. In fact, you've gone through a number of people on that CARM post, all more or less concluding that dialoging with you is futile. If it were just me, maybe you could say it was personal. But I saw a number of people shake the dust from their feet and leave you alone.
Come to think of it, it seems to me that it became so for you over a year ago. Luther was always so prone to denounce the belief rather than the individual. Right? Again, I think He would be proud.
Again Tim, I've tried to reason with you, but it's a futile endevelor. That's why I don't play with you anymore.
In my opinion you limited the word count because you wanted to limit the dialogue.
In my opinion, you write long winded meandering convoluted posts to hide the fact you don't know what you're talking about.
You knew that your “best chance” would be to limit the amount that I was “allowed” to contribute to the conversation.
Your best chance to hide your faulty reasoning was through a massive amount of convoluted text.
I fully recognize my own verboseness but won’t apologize for having more to say in defense of my position than you do.
Hide if you must, but find other playmates to trudge through that stuff you write. It's awful.
I also won’t apologize for excessively justifying my positions when you admit that you have no intention to reveal yours.
Lol, it's not my problem you can't read or write with aptitude.
Just like Luther and just like most of the “lesser” Protestant Apologists, you have a need to control the dialogue by whatever means possible.
Ah Tim, you're getting a bit personal here (see your comment above). Perhaps you shouldn't waste your time with "lesser" people.
Control the content, the word count, define “correctly of course the context, etc. Whatever is necessary in order to avoid TRULY defending your position (as if you are prone to identifying it).
Write excessive amounts that often don't follow any logic, use multi colored fonts, and hope no one figures out that Tim is confused. Anyone with a solid position could use a small amount of words to prove a position. It was obvious that if you were forced to define and defend any one point, you failed miserably.
Someone says that you have painted yourself into a corner and explains specifically and exactly how, then offers you four possibilities to defend that position, and then you don't even read them. Or possibly CLAIM not to have read them.
Nope, didn't read it Tim, and if it's anything like what you've produced here, I didn't miss anything.
That’s is exactly how Luther would have handled it too. Rather than deal with the point, just pronounce it to be invalid and expect everyone to fall into line. Classic. Arrogant, presumptuous and disrespectful but then I would suggest that that might be why you admire Luther so much.
LOL, or it could be, you write long winded convoluted multi colored mish mash, and that's why a number of CARM people steer clear of you. The only valuable discussions we've had are the moderated debate, and the few posts in which you were forced to actually focus via a word count. Other than that, you produce rambling nonsense.
In addition, you STILL have not offered up the opinion (which you claim to have) on Luther's "authority".
Obviously, you have trouble reading.
James, I was also involved in those discussion with you and I have a “slightly” different take. It always seemed to me that you were, rather than dialoguing with me, PRONOUNCING TO me. Again Luther would be proud in that that is EXACTLY how He dealt with his opponents.
Simply re-read our moderated debate, or any of the word count posts. I indeed tried to reason with you in an organized, logical manner.
“His work on the Bible translation makes plain that Luther was more than an unshakably certain Reformer. His claim to being the first called to the office of preacher of the Gospel was something he never allowed to be challenged; he saw his experience as the Christian experience, and his long search led him to a truth that inspired his contemporaries with new goals. Luther lived at a time when truth was still indivisible, and the “Evangelist” was firmly convinced that he alone represented the truth. The claim brought him the reputation of being a loner. He champanioned the cause of the weak and the layman, but among theologians he tolerated only listeners and disciplines.” Oberman pg 307-8
That's nice Tim. Here again, you need to jump all over the place. Now we're on to Oberman. You're too much.
Now James, I am CERTAIN that, according to you, I have the “context” of this quote “wrong”. The only thing I am not certain about is, exactly and specifically HOW. I am sure that you will provide the details. To me, as terrible as I am on the “context thing”, it seems to me that Oberman, a Protestant by the way, is indicating that Luther was fairly dictatorial in his discussions with other Theologians. In other words, he was not exactly capable of dealing with the arguments of his peers, but was much more prone to dismiss them with a wave of his hand.
What would it matter? You'll just jump all over the place anyhow.
Should I point out that you have again failed to address my comments on Luther’s criticism of the Canon or that you have again failed to reveal your opinion of Luther’s “authority”. Or are you getting tired of hearing about that?
Tim, I responded to each of your comments posted on this blog. If you still think you have an argument, then there's nothing I can do about it. I can't force you to think rationally.
Seriously James, it doesn’t appear to me that you appreciate my comments here on your Pop Apologetics Blog all that much. But if I didn’t show up once in while and spice things up a little bit, who would contribute anything much, other than you?
Tim, comment if you wish, or don't. If I received zero comments from any who stopped by, that would be fine as well.
The reason that I wander in here from time to time is that I find this to be an excellent place to learn about the kinds of things that the “defenders” of Luther believe need to be swept under the carpet.
That's great Tim. Enjoy your stay when you're here.
I only wish that in your “defense” of Luther you would focus more on what you personally believe to be true rather than criticizing the beliefs of others. That would make this a more “target rich environment” (Maverick, from “Top Gun”), but then you know that don’t you?
I don't know what "Top Gun" is, but there are plenty of things stated that I believe on this blog. It's not my problem if you can't read with comprehension.
Seriously, say whatever you want. But as long as you dismiss the arguments of others without dealing with them, your position will transparent to those who are really looking for answers and at the evidence.
Indeed Tim, that's why nothing you put forth is terrifying.
As long as your opinions about Luther’s actual “authority” remain unrevealed, it seems to me that you have no “right” to criticize the opinions of others on the same subject.
Tim, check your glasses, or if you don't have glasses, get a pair.
Furthermore, I did notice that you failed to deal with my comments on WHY, specifically and exactly (of course), you do not want to reveal those opinions. Was that an oversight or what?
Tim, which part of "Luther was a preacher and a theologian. He had authority as both, in that he demonstrated and proved his abilities. He was a Reformer in a corrupt church, which history proves."
You know James, all of these discussion with you are NOT much fun.
Yes, it's harder to produce multi-colored long winding illogical rants.
They would be much more so for me at least, IF you would just be, at least somewhat honest about what you really think. But then that wouldn’t be as much fun for you, would it?
No Tim, there's nothing fun about interacting with you.
Tim's response: Rather than actually dealing with "Roman arguments", you simply PROCLAIM that they are invalid. Marty would be proud because that is exactly the way that he dealt with His opponents and He did so also with no apparent shame. Why do I even bother?
Tim, this is called, applying one's argument to themselves. That is, if your own argument defeats your own position, it's an invalid argument.
"In addition, you STILL have not offered up the opinion (which you claim to have) on Luther's 'authority'."
Oh no! I'm looking for the earth-shattering implications of this failure of Swan's. Oh, wait. There are no implications. It's not as though Swan would have any reason to pretend to have an opinion when actually doesn't have one, or that such a pretense would be in any way significant to the argument if it were really pretense.
In fact, Tim MD's demand for Swan's opinion is a rather transparent ploy. Everyone can see that he wants Swan's opinion, because he wants to be able to change the topic of the conversation from his false claims about Luther to a critique of Swan's opinions.
I don't know whether Tim MD is trying to insult our intelligence by imagining that we cannot see this, or whether he himself is focused on attacking Mr. Swan that he doesn't realize that Mr. Swan's opinion is not (and never has been) what is at issue. Perhaps there's even some third option.
"Rather than actually dealing with "Roman agruments", you simply PROCLAIM that they are invalid."
Actually, Mr. Swan has demonstrated their invalidity on many occasions. He has even demonstrated their invalidity in this instance through the simple fact that Rome didn't define the canon until about the time that Luther died. Perhaps if Tim MD read what Mr. Swan wrote more carefully ...
"Marty would be proud because that is exactly the way that he dealt with His opponents and He did so also with no apparent shame."
It's interesting to see how defamation of Luther continues even to the present day. This act of raising such obviously false charges against Luther (in this day of easy access to Luther's writings) should either lead us to pity Tim MD as a madman or scorn him as a liar. I'm not sure why Mr. Swan continues to tolerate him here, since he offers nothing constructive to the conversation.
"Why do I even bother?"
Indeed!
-TurretinFan
The whole problem with Tim MD's approach is that he argues from a Romanist worldview, however, when the arguments he uses are applied to his own position, they defeat his position.
He also doesn't consistently apply the Romanist worldview:
Tim MD argues Luther wasn't allowed like Cajetan to question the canon because he promoted a different Gospel.
However, once again, it was Trent that defined justification, so again Luther still could believe in sola fide- the Romanist system gave him the freedom to do so.
Post a Comment