I was sent this link:
Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol
I was pleased to read this entry from Carl Trueman. It was this time last year when he put out "Another Thing Needful". That post deeply troubled myself and some of my blogging friends. This time he's put together a cogent and articulate blog post on the fallacies of some of Rome's blatant double standards in apologetics. The good news about this new post is, it says quite nicely what many of us have said for quite a long time. The bad news about this new post is, it says quite nicely what many of us have said for quite a long time. That is, there's nothing really new here. There's nothing in this post that many people with a lot less academic credentials haven't already pointed out. Ah well.
In terms of apologetics against Romanism, I'm not too sure what more there is to say. The major arguments over Scripture, Tradition, and the Gospel have been done over and over again. So, it appears to me Carl is late to the party. The work has largely been done for him. The curtain, so to speak, has already been pulled back. We all know what the wizard looks like. We've known for years.
Addendum
In my Luther-research of Roman Catholic argumentation, I've seen a steady drop-off in the typical Romanist slander. I think it's largely due to the Internet. Back when I started looking up Roman Catholic Luther quotes, it was like the whack-a-mole game. Now, I rarely find Rome's bigger stars putting forth the same out-of-context dribble they did previously. The other day I was reading one of Rome's heroes actually defending Luther on the necessity of good works as the result of justification. If you were to go back a number of years and read this same Roman apologist on this topic, he would've been arguing Luther was in some sense an antinomian. Perhaps even I've said all I can possibly say on the topics that interest me. My party may be over as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
there's nothing really new here.
Maybe not in terms of substance, but definitely in terms of audience. I couldn't say for sure, but it seems to me the Ref21 audience is a "mainstream" Reformed audience, not generally interested in Roman Catholic apologetics.
In a related sense, there is the legitimacy of one of our top-notch scholars addressing one of their top-notch scholars (and theirs is, typically lacking). Ours is a message that can be seen to be bubbling up from the grass roots of Protestantism.
In terms of apologetics against Romanism, I'm not too sure what more there is to say. The major arguments over Scripture, Tradition, and the Gospel have been done over and over again.
There are always new people to the party, for whom the message will be new. There is always vigilance, of not letting our gains slip away.
Perhaps even I've said all I can possibly say on the topics that interest me.
There is always academia (as a new audience for you) and diffusing your message outward across the range of "Luther scholars" who need to hear what you've been saying, and in response to whom you've been saying it!
Trueman's notation of the importance of conciliarism, and really of the whole 15th century to the Reformation proper, is relatively new among Reformed academics. The "Huss problem" notwithstanding, the 15th century conciliarists are our friends, as Luther himself well knew. He cited D'Ailly and Gerson often in his works precisely for their opposition to the papacy and their attempts to strip biblical exegesis of the accretions of Scholastic philosophy. Any account of the Reformation that doesn't root it solidly in the 15th century (and the precedents even before that) is an inadequate account. Unfortunately, most Protestant apologetic accounts are inadequate in this way, so it's very good to see a Reformed academic mentioning these things as serious factors for our consideration.
John,
As I stated, Dr. Trueman put together a cogent and articulate blog post on the fallacies of some of Rome's blatant double standards in apologetics. If reinventing the wheel is the only way for his fellow academics to take notice of trends in Romanism, well, so be it. Maybe the CTC website has finally woken them up that even the mighty Reformed can be swayed by Romanism.
As to "gains slip away", yes and no. Of course any new materials on Rome's deadly errors are always welcome. On the other hand, I believe that if the majority of the world eventually has an account on the Catholic Answers website, this majority does not mean Romanism is true.
As to my Luther-offerings, thank you for your compliment.I get little, if any support from Lutherans at large. They are typically far too suspicious that someone Reformed can actually say anything helpful about Luther (curiously though, Concordia recently published a Luther book by a Roman Catholic author). I assume eventually, Concordia will put together books and products similar to what I've been blogging about for years.
Trueman's notation of the importance of conciliarism, and really of the whole 15th century to the Reformation proper, is relatively new among Reformed academics.
Hi Tim-
Just out of curiosity... whom do you refer to as "Reformed academics"?
It was a general term denoting intellectuals active in some aspect or another of "the academy," whether seminary or university or other educational establishment. I didn't have particular people in mind, but I have noticed in the 8 years or so I've been studying academic materials on conciliarism that Reformed voices on the subject are few and far between. That's all I meant.
Thanks for the clarification.
Post a Comment