The mastermind behind this lengthy discussion is a Roman Catholic named Tim MD. You can read through his lengthy tomes for yourself. Pick any one, and you'll get the gist. Tim has stated the following to me a few times: "I have some advice for you James: Do NOT enter the ministry in any form."
I don't know anything about Tim other than what he demonstrates via his reading and writing on CARM. Over the years, I've noticed some rather bizarre posts and responses he's offered. There have been times when I've tried to be charitable towards him. There are times I haven't.
The Scriptures exhort to "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). There are indeed many people with whom I converse in which this applies.
On the other hand, the Scriptures also demonstrate there are times to simply follow the example of Christ and the Apostles. Let's bring Luther in to summarize. Luther asks rhetorically if the Lord used abusive language against his enemies: “Was he abusive when he called the Jews an adulterous and perverse generation, an offspring of vipers, hypocrites, and children of the Devil?… The truth, which one is conscious of possessing, cannot be patient against its obstinate and intractable enemies." In similar fashion, Luther responded to his opponent Latomus:
“He (Latomus) says that I lack the evangelical modesty which I enjoin, and that this is especially true of the book in which I replied to the sophists of Louvain when they condemned my teachings. Now I have never insisted that anyone consider me modest or holy, but only that everyone recognize what the gospel is. If they do this, I give anyone freedom to attack my life to his heart’s content. My boast is that I have injured no one’s life or reputation, but only sharply reproached, as godless and sacrilegious, those assertions, inventions, and doctrines which are against the Word of God. I do not apologize for this, for I have good precedents. John the Baptist (Luke 3:7) and Christ after him (Matt. 23:33) called the Pharisees the “offspring of vipers.” So excessive and outrageous was this abuse of such learned, holy, powerful, and honored men that they said in reply that He had a demon (John 7:20). If in this instance Latomus had been judge, I wonder what the verdict would have been! Elsewhere Christ calls them “blind” (Matt. 23:16), “crooked,” “liars,” “sons of the devil” (John 8:44, 55). Good God, even Paul lacked evangelical modesty when he anathematized the teachers of the Galatians (Gal. 1:8) who were, I suppose, great men. Others he calls “dogs” (Phil. 3:2), “empty talkers” (Tit. 1:10), “deceivers” (Col. 2:4, 8). Further, he accused to his face the magician Elymas with being a “son of the devil, full of all deceit and villainy (Acts 13:10).”With Tim, I've reached a point in which the former (1 Pet. 3:15) no longer applies, but the later does. Now, I don't plan on using any of the negative words Christ and the apostles used against their opponents. The above is merely to make the point that 1 Peter 3:15 is not the paradigm I'm using these days with Tim. Tim is not on CARM on an ecumenical encounter in which we're all learning about each other, sharing similarities, and politely discussing the differences. No, Tim stands vehemently against the Gospel and the sole authority of the Scriptures. He's demonstrated over the years that he's consistently not willing to listen. He stands committed to Romanism, and not just any Romanism (like the current post-Vatican 2 ecumenical Jimmy Akin / Catholic Answers approach), but rather an older strand that thinks all the heresy in the world finds it's path back to Luther and the Reformation. For Tim, to refute Luther either doctrinally or morally is to defeat Protestantism (at least in his mind). While some may think all this historical quibbling over little tidbits is trivial, I think Tim himself would admit he posts it for a reason, and that reason is to convince Protestants to embrace Romanism.
Perhaps in other areas of life, Tim is a great guy. Perhaps if I knew him in some other context things would be different. I don't, so he's simply words on a screen to me. If I met him as a stranger broken down on the side of the road, chances are I'd stop to help him. If he were the guy trying to merge into traffic, chances are I'd let him in. If Tim is some sort of war veteran, I'd shake his hand and thank him for his service. If he was picketing an abortion clinic and I knew it was Tim, I'd join him in protest. But I only know Tim as a Romanist attacking the Gospel. In this context, I'm not here to minister to TimMD, even if I were ordained.
14 comments:
Sounds like your interlocutor is related to the Roman Catholic I have been arguing with for the past few years. Oy Veh! Whenever he has nothing to rebut with, its time for the ad hominem parade. Thanks for your post. Now I don't feel so guilty for using the (very) occasional ad hom myself.
Swanee, you're just an anti-Catholic bigoted hater.
This post proves it.
;-)
Now I have never insisted that anyone consider me modest or holy, but only that everyone recognize what the gospel is.
Beautiful.
So what is the gospel?
Brigitte: "So what is the gospel?"
Brigitte, do you still stand by your response to Rhology:
"Baptism is Gospel."
From Rho's post:
Gospel Versus Emotional Lutheranism.
TUAD, tell me the Gospel. Though I really was asking James.
Brigitte, do you still stand by your response to Rhology:
"Baptism is Gospel."
I am not going down this road with either you or Rhology.
This summer there was a baptism service at a community fellowship church. The pastor spent the entire sermon going on about how people who are baptized in Catholic and such churches don't believe in the end. He spent the rest of the sermon speaking about all that baptism is not. He did not use any relevant scripture only statistics.
At the end he paused for questions. There was one question asked: "Can you do it again?"
This is the inevitable consequence of teaching that baptism does not actually do anything (the sacrament nourishes our faith, he said, but then he equivocated right away, by making the sacrament something "we" do.)
Since in this view it is something "we do", necessarily people question if it has been done right and needs doing again.
So, here, in that congregation definitely baptism is not gospel.
This is the inevitable consequence of teaching that baptism does not actually do anything
Brigitte,
You do understand that your stories and conflicts prove nothing, right? What the gospel is or isn't isn't about how you feel, it is about what God has revealed to be true.
Rhology and others have spent a lot of time with you trying to explain things from scripture. You always seem to come back with flowery stories and logical objections based on personal presuppositions.
I would love to see you either answer scripturally or stop coming on here throwing stones and then retreating. How is that helpful?
This was a true and recent occurance and a sermon, highly disturbing to me and I have no idea what the baptismal candidates were supposed to get out of it.
You have dealt with none of the contents.
And I am still waiting for a definition of gospel from James.
And you see that TUAD has pressed me to it.
I am not particularly interested in engaging you either, Carrie, the way this is going.
This was a true and recent occurance and a sermon, highly disturbing to me and I have no idea what the baptismal candidates were supposed to get out of it.
I wasn't denying the veracity of your story, just pointing out that it proves nothing either way about the relationship of the gospel and baptism.
You have dealt with none of the contents.
What content is there to deal with? I said your story proves nothing.
And I am still waiting for a definition of gospel from James.
Why? Do you not know the definition or do you think he doesn't know it?
And you see that TUAD has pressed me to it.
Maybe he was responding to your first comment asking James what the gospel was. If you are going to ask questions you should be willing to answer one or two.
I am not particularly interested in engaging you either, Carrie, the way this is going.
How is it going? People are asking you to back up your statements?
Anyway, I wasn't trying to engage you, it was more a friendly piece of advice. I was hoping you could see how you were being ineffective.
But I did try to engage you a month or two ago and when I asked you specific questions so that I could understand your POV, you refused to answer and instead did similar to what you said above - "You're not engaging my content". It's kinda hard to know what your content is since you won't answer my follow up questions.
But I will leave you to interrogate James on the meaning of the gospel. My apologies if anything I said came off as harsh, it was not intended that way.
Aren't you supposed to give answers to the hope that is in you? That's what I've been asking for, but that question was previously off limits already.
Brigitte,
I've already answered you on what the Gospel is.
I can't say that your discussion in this comment box have led me closer to the impression that you're interested in true dialogue.
You have been very clear about your impressions previously.
Post a Comment