For an entertaining, semi-humorous response of little substance, read Lutheran seminarian and polemicist Josh S.'s "Conversions to Rome" post:
http://www.reformedcatholicism.c...ism.com/?
p=1154
Also, see his typically cynical comment to Dr. Koons himself:
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/a...l#comment-
51131
Moreover, he shows the predictable disdain of Cardinal Newman and displays his fundamental ignorance of what Newman's famous conception of development of doctrine even is, in the first place, calling his approach "quasi-Hegelian."
If the inimitable Josh ever wants to seriously debate Newman's philosophy and ideas (rather than simply take silly and stupid potshots), he knows where he can go. Don't look for that anytime soon, though. He thinks even less of this person he could debate the topic with than he does of Cardinal Newman. 
Oh; it would help, too, next time, if Josh is gonna report on a conversion of a known academic, to get his name right. It's Robert, not Peter Koons. A Freudian slip, perhaps?
Poor Josh. I'm always fascinated by the stories of conversion whatever religion they go to. I may not agree with where they ended up, but I can't just spew ideological flatulance and dismiss it in such a bad faith manner.
Dr. Koons absolutely shredded Josh's tomfoolery:
Dear Josh,
With all respect, your response is not only unpersuasive, it's dismaying.
Surely you don't mean to suggest that there's something wrong with being influenced by a 150-year old book. Surely you've been influenced by books even older.
Surely you don't mean to suggest that there has been no development of doctrine - not on the doctrine of the Trinity, or the two natures of Christ, or the canon of Scripture, or infant baptism.
Surely it was a slip when you wrote that "no father ever" taught that we should ask the saints in heaven to intercede for us -- you may have forgotten Cyprian, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine.
Surely you didn't mean to disparage the idea that God might use material objects (like water or oil) as sacramental instruments of His grace.
And surely it was another slip when you suggested that Rome teaches that there are no sacraments among other churches, when Rome accepts the validity of all Christian baptism.
Posted by: Rob Koons | May 18, 2007 11:10 PM
Josh made a pretty good statement (as far as it goes) of self-criticism of Lutheran laxity in sharing and defending their viewpoint,
http://
metalutheran.blogspot.com...roselytism.html
and I replied on his blog:
---------------
Well stated! It does, of course, help quite a bit, also, that the Bible and early Church history are both squarely on the Catholic side of the debate. Try as you may, you can't overthrow the facts of patristic history.
And that was a key factor in the conversions of both Dr. Beckwith and Dr. Koons. You can squeal and moan all you like about Newman, etc. (complete with the usual laughably misinformed potshots), but if you attempt to lower yourself down to the level of us mere mortals and actually argue what Church Father X believed about Y, then it's over and the charade of pretending that the Fathers are more "Lutheran" than Catholic is manifest.
Josh makes himself more ridiculous (this guy is the Lutheran polemical version of Tim Enloe) over at Reformed Catholicism, describing adherence to all that the Catholic Church teaches in the following manner:
"So it really is intellectual suicide on the order of what geocentrist fundamentalists ask of people.
". . . In other words, to be a Catholic is to have so put your mind to death that no matter how ludicrous or self-contradictory the Vatican’s declarations are, you simply trust with absolute faith that pope is being inerrantly inspired by God."
http://www.reformedcatholicism.c...#comment-
100392
The Reformed Catholicism blog is a mixed bag these days. I was heartened to see that the conversion of Francis Beckwith didn't cause a feeding frenzy of flatulent criticism on the blog, in the way that the conversion of Fr. Al Kimel did a while back, and Kevin Johnson actually made some sensible statements on it. Progress. Learn from past mistakes. So I thought . . .
But then the blogmasters decided (after bashing Lutherans in the past) to bring on two Lutheran polemicists as regular contributors: Josh S. and Pastor Paul McCain. Now, immediately the convert-bashing and "anti-Newmanism" has begun again and anew, in the treatment of Robert Koons. They will have to decide what sort of impression they wish to foster over there . . . Will it be truly ecumenical, or ecumenical with regard to every kind of Christian except for Catholics?
To top the list of absurdities, Josh recently stated that he would rather break bread in fellowship with a Catholic than a Calvinist. Yet he hobnobs with the Calvinists at RefCath and treats Catholics in this atrocious fashion, as always.
You try to figure it out. I confess that it is beyond my powers.
I wrote on Josh's blog, in response to the usual ultra-predictable criticisms:
-----------
Just using Josh's own rhetorical methods and his general viewpoint that conversion to Catholicism could never possibly come about because intelligent men came to different conclusions about the Bible and the Fathers than Josh's own.
But I stand by my statement about the Fathers (i.e., in its essential point, minus some of the gratuitous rhetoric of the moment). That can only be determined by actually discussing individual cases of what they supposedly believed about so-and-so. I've had many intelligent, constructive debates with Lutherans on that general topic, especially with "CPA."
Reasonable folks can disagree. I've never stated otherwise. As a Catholic, I believe that the Fathers were Catholics, and far closer to our beliefs than Lutheran ones.
Josh and the Lutherans here believe otherwise. It can only be determined by sustained examination of the Fathers.
My main objection to Josh is that he wants to make his hyper-polemical and insulting statements, without the requisite work of proving his points or debating them with an informed Catholic. This is what is so objectionable about his "method."
I HAVE done that. Anyone can go to my "Luther and Lutheranism" or "Fathers of the Church" web pages and see many dozens of related debates on these topics. So when I make a statement I am fully able and willing to back it up, but I contend that Josh is not. He wants to polemicize without the necessary spade-work of demonstration.
. . . Josh makes out that a consistent Catholic who believes all that he is required to believe by his Church, has committed intellectual suicide and put his mind to death and rendered himself as mentally impotent as geocentrists.
I have never said anything remotely as condescending as this. My position is not at all that Protestants en masse have committed intellectual suicide. I have only stated that the specific tiny minority of anti-Catholic Protestants have done that.
Since Josh recently stated that he would rather fellowship with Catholics than Calvinists, because we at least have a real sacrament of the Eucharist, obviously he is not "anti-Catholic" in my definition. But he is awfully ignorant and divisive when it comes to Catholicism.
You can all blame me for a turn-the-table response and ignore what brought it on if you like. No skin off my back. Let the emperor of this venue be naked and uncorrected. To paraphrase Chris [Jones], "that does no credit to the denomination[s] which you presume to defend," either.
Predictably, Josh deleted four of my comments from his blog (I had preserved most of that here). He wrote:
"Dave, if you wish to debate what's going on at reformedcatholicism.com, post in the comments at reformedcatholicism.com. You know I consider it an abuse of my comments to (let me count) quintuple post."
I replied:
I'm banned from RefCath (because I spoke out against Tim Enloe's nonsense, just as I do against yours), so I can hardly do that.
Interesting that I am not allowed to make four comments and a mere P.S. in response to three separate posts directed towards me. But on the Trent and Concord thread, I see that Jack Kilcrease made three comments on 5-16 and Steve P. made five on 5-17. What, if I waited 20 minutes in-between posts or let someone else comment first, then it is okay?
Not a peep from you over on the other thread. Or are people simply not allowed to disagree with you on your blog? Censorship of Catholics does go way back in Lutheran circles, though, so I can't say that I am the least bit surprised.
Lucky I saved most of my comments on my blog. One can never be too careful where matters of free speech are concerned!
[retracted remark from someone else removed] . . . I'm not surprised Josh has deleted your comments. He's probably feeling a little embarrassed and put-upon after eliciting so many corrective remarks in response to his uttering such laughable nonsense about the Catholic faith. At any rate, he SHOULD feel embarrassed. Maybe he'll learn his lesson and actually make sure he knows what he's talking about the next time he tries to tell people what Catholicism teaches and doesn't teach. He ought to blush for letting himself get caught with his intellectual pants down.
LOL Don't hold your breath on that, though. He reminds me so much of Tim Enloe: very sharp guys who have verbal diarrhea and insist on making ridiculous statements about things where they think they are experts but they clearly are not.
Josh is more funny and entertaining than Tim, but also considerably more ludicrous, when discussing Catholicism. It's ironic that Reformed Catholicism has just brought on Josh, as Tim has become less active there. The resident Hyper-Polemicist . . .
Again, on Josh's blog:
My remark on Lutheran censorship had far more to do with Josh's present ludicrous moderation policies. We're now in the 21st century, not the 16th. So, in my usual smart ass way (i.e., when dealing with smart asses like Josh), I simply referred to historical fact.
But since John brought this up, the Catholics, by and large (not always), were willing to let the Lutherans worship as they pleased (e.g., the Emperor's demeanor at the Diet of Augsburg), but Lutherans forbade Catholic masses in their territories and simply stole Catholic property. It's not arguable; it is historical fact (just as in England). I've copiously documented it in many papers.
Luther censored Catholic versions of the Bible, and lied about (as did the movie, Luther) the plain fact that many German translations (some 14 or so, as I recall) had been available for several generations before he was born.
All I ask is that your comments stay on topic, and that you choose one thing to address at a time.
It's not that simple. Censorship is not the present topic (based on the post). I made an editorial remark about my posts being deleted and John responded. Now I am responding back. So what do you do: delete John's comment because it strayed from the topic, and this one also, because I replied to him? Why can't people simply have freedom to respond to whatever is put out? If everyone is gonna jump all over me because I am the resident Dissenter and Critic, am I not allowed to reply without having stuff deleted?
I agree that folks ought to stay on topic. I'm a stickler for that on my own blog. But when comments are made at someone else's expense, or in reply to their comments, then the first person ought to be allowed to have his say. That's fundamental free speech and fair play.
I laughed out loud for a good thirty seconds. The very idea of a Catholic complaining about censorship truly engenders more hilarity than anything I've ever seen in the comments on my blog.
The silliness of your present policy is absurd in and of itself, regardless of the unfortunate history of Lutheran-Catholic relations (whatever that is determined to be by historians). But as I have shown, there was plenty of scandal and intolerance among early Lutherans. For heaven's sake, under Luther and Melanchthon, current-day Baptists could be put to death, whereas not many Catholics were executed. Yet I once talked to a Lutheran pastor's wife who was so exceedingly ignorant that she denied that Luther accepted the death penalty for heresy. I said that she need only go as far as Bainton's Here I Stand to see the falsity of that.
I commented on Dr. Beckwith's blog (where Dr. Koons announced his conversion) -- largely with Josh in mind:
Wouldn't it be nice, too, if just once these hyper-critics of a convert would actually interact with the convert's materials explaining why he converted?
I could understand, in Dr. Beckwith's case, that there wasn't all that much that could be critiqued right off the bat, as he has chosen to give it some time to prepare a treatise on his reasoning. Not that that stopped people. They simply barged right into motivational factors and possible politics of the ETS and Dr. Beckwith's alleged nefarious motives regarding same (SIGH; Lord help us).
But with Dr. Koons, there is a superb treatment of justification that is available for all and sundry to read, pick apart, attempt to blow out of the water if they wish. He more or less presented it with that goal in mind, for people to grapple with if they so chose.
So what stops them from doing just that? I think I know what it is, but nevertheless, if someone disagrees and thinks that the reasoning is so insufficient and shallow, then by all means, why do they not dismantle the paper without mercy and show Dr. Koons where his reasoning was false and led him astray (or, failing that, simply "shut up" and cease with the gratuitous Catholic-bashing and insults)?
But these days, few are willing to do that. The Internet (even more so than society at large) seems to be a "culture" where it is far more important to talk about and at people, rather than with them, in mutually-respectful dialogue, as equals under Christ and on an intellectual plane.
It's too much to ask anymore, I guess, for people to carefully, systematically explain and argue why they disagree with Person X about Set of Arguments C explaining conversion to Position B (and from Position A, as in this instance).
This is so fundamental to theological (indeed all intellectual) discourse that it is embarrassing and distressing to even have to point it out. Yet it is clearly necessary to do so, given how so many hyper-critics of Catholic converts conduct themselves.
Mr. Armstrong,
Please forgive me for my comments on that blog. They were out of line and uncharitable.
I realize that my Faith journey has been quite a confusing one, and I apologize if I have imparted that confusion onto others.
God bless,
Arturo
Sure, Arturo. I appreciate it very much. it was a class act for you to come here and apologize. Have a great day.
Josh:
The Emperor saw the Augsburg Confession as an act of insubordination, and war ensued. Only after bitter and bloody conflict and with the looming threat of the Turk being far more serious than the Lutherans was the Peace of Augsburg signed in I think 1555. However, Trent overturned the terms of the PoA, and various revolts and suppressions continued for around three decades. However, the power of the Reformed and Lutheran princes was sufficient that non-papally sanctioned worship was a political reality that Rome simply had to accept by the middle of the 17th century.
Me:
None of that overthrows the facts I cited. Are you denying that Lutherans forbade Catholic masses in their territories or that they confiscated Catholic property (i.e., stealing, outright theft) on a huge scale? I'd love to see you do that.
The facts on that score are so utterly obvious and non-debatable, that I wouldn't waste time even documenting them here (and you'd complain that it made my post too long anyway). Anyone familiar at all with my blog can find many papers dealing with this.
On Josh's blog:
John H:
Citing my words:
"Are you denying that Lutherans forbade Catholic masses in their territories or that they confiscated Catholic property (i.e., stealing, outright theft) on a huge scale?"
Dave, I'm confused. Three posts ago you were saying, "We're now in the 21st century, not the 16th"...
Context . . . just answer the cotton-pickin' question (or I suppose the reluctance is already the answer). Everyone knows all sides have done bad stuff. No sense beating around the bush about it. It doesn't disprove anyone's theology.
My frustration as an apologist is to see the continual double standard about Catholic "bad stuff" (trumpeted incessantly) vs. Protestant scandal (hardly known, denied, or rationalized away). So part of my mission in life is to even that score at every opportunity.
And again:
Of course the context of all this talk of "sins of the [Lutheran / Catholic] fathers" was John's and Josh's uproarious laughter over my remark about Lutheran censorship, as if it were the silliest thing ever uttered by man in human history.
So I made indisputable references to some of the things that happened in those days among Lutherans, showing, of course, that my statement was not ridiculous at all.
THAT is the context. But then it gets distorted to all this other BS that had nothing to do with my point in context at all. People assume I was supposedly making points that never crossed my mind, they butcher context, ignore the question, change topics, etc., then all the foolishness of my comments being deleted, and then it comes back to me supposedly getting off track.
I (as a long time socratic in method) react to other people's arguments, and answer them to the best of my ability, and then challenge them in turn. If people will simply read carefully and give me the slightest benefit of the doubt, it'll all make sense, believe me.
Again, on Josh's blog, responding to "kerner", who wanted to opine about how much worse Catholic persecution was than Lutheran, etc.
--------------
Case in point (thank you very much), but (to play your pompous game) who gives a &%#$ about what you say, anyway? Give it a rest, after all.
we have not done much to try to convince other Christians of the merits of our theology
Exactly. You can start by systematically refuting Dr. Koons excellent treatise on justification, rather than simply putting the man down, moaning (Josh-style) about how intelligent men can be such fools to become Catholic and put their minds to death, etc.
I've always been happy and willing to do comparative theology and patristics with Lutherans, but it's like pulling teeth to get you guys to do it. If Dr. Koons is such a lamebrain for converting, then by all means, do your Lutheran apologetics and show us why and DEAL with the man's reasoning.
Is that impossible? Why don't any of you just DO it, if your argument is so compelling and triumphant over us lowly papists (so low that Josh can't even link to any of us - and I do link to this blog, btw, and several other Lutheran sites, including John H's)?
If Dr. Koons didn't have time to respond, I would certainly make time in my schedule to do so, as some sort of Catholic counter-response. There are few things I love more than delving into Holy Scripture and doing comparative exegesis. So hard to find anyone to do it, though . . .
Dave,
Try and not overreact to Josh. Actually most Protestants have been pretty rational or silent. We should not over respond to the one classless commenter. I trued to articulate why these things rock the world of a protestant here on my blog here:
http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.c...stant-converts/
We just need to give people time to process things.
It's hardly overreacting to object to someone who says all consistent Catholics must have put their brain to death, as if we're clueless idiots. I'm all for giving people time to process, sure; but then they need to do their part and shut up if they don't yet understand why someone converted, rather than shoot off their mouth with ignorant rants.
Another post at Josh's:
Hi Jack [Kilcrease],
Dave- I'd be interested to take your challenge. I'll argue Bible and Patristics with you any day of the week.
If you want to show the superiority of Lutheranism in matters biblical or patristic, pick a topic. If I haven't written about it already (or you have some new slant not covered by an existing paper, as I don't like to duplicate specific topics unnecessarily in the course of my work), then it'd be a lot of fun and educational for both of us, I think.
The most fun (from where I sit) would be what I suggested: one of you tries to systematically critique Dr. Koons' paper (or one of mine from my Luther & Lutheranism or Salvation & Justification or Fathers of the Church pages).
Man, if someone actually did that and hung around when I (and/or he [Dr. Koons], of course) counter-replied and allowed it to get to the really interesting stage of discussion (no hit and run routines) -- and could remain cordial as well: itself pretty rare anymore on the Internet --, that would be the most fun doing apologetics that I've had in five, maybe ten years.
I'm assuming you are LCMS? Do you think that the Catholic Church is Christian, or are you an anti-Catholic (one who denies this)?
NINETY FOUR PAGES...IS HE CRAZY!
Dr Koon's cards are on the table, any "counter attacks" that are not refuting direct quotes from that 94 page apology are SURELY nothing more than "flatulent criticism" and "verbal diarrhea."
(LOL, I love those descriptions)
I agree, it is like pulling teeth getting protestants to respond beyond the surface level. It seems like all the can do now days is hit and run or keep spinning the issue until the Catholic is either mentally and spiritually exhausted, or worse yet (and this is what the Protestant is banking on), that the Catholic will say something uncharitable and/or some minor theological slip--which the Protestant will never cease to exploit from then on.
The fact is we have to step back and realize that Protestantism is collapsing in regard to its theology and high level defenders. These high level conversions to Catholicism are causing earthquakes all around, and they are only going to increase...thank God people are waking up.
Well said, Nick. Jack Kilcrease, a Lutheran working on a doctorate, sez he will take up the challenge. Stay tuned. The more educated the better . . . I don't mind at all being far less theologically educated than my debate partner. Then it is a great challenge and they are less likely to be intimidated and split.
I continue to be amazed at how hard it is to establish a really good and substantive, constructive discussion on theology or Church history with a Protestant.
Like you say, where are their confident defenders these days, who will engage on the Internet?
"I began to realize that many Lutheran and Protestant polemicists have been guilty of two fallacies: a straw-man version of contemporary Roman Catholic teaching,"
What do you consider "contemporary" Roman Catholic teaching?
I myself am not much interested in "contemporary" Roman Catholic teaching. Early 16th century Roman Catholic teaching is more interesting, not to mention more relevant to understanding the Reformation.
Jay writes on Josh's blog:
Who is this Dr. Koons, and why would there be any benefit at all about debating "his own personal interpretation" on anything?
I'm serious. Unless Dr. Koons is the pope, I don't see it advancing the dialogue one iota. You could argue down to a fine point of the arguement, but there would be nothing solid to pin
anything to. In the end, the pope alone can tell a Roman Catholic if they are right or wrong.
Lutherans would do better to proclaim the gospel and let the spirit work with those that hear it.
I replied:
Hi Jay,
Oh, only a well-known Lutheran philosopher (I knew his name before he converted, since I like to have a working knowledge of at least the major theistic philosophers) who also had a
degree in theology from Oxford. If he is a nobody, then why did Josh give him any notice at all? Yet he bothered to write up a post on RefCath and to comment on Dr. Beckwith's blog,
where Dr. Koons announced his conversion.
This is the head-in-the-sand attitude among many Lutherans that I am critiquing: anything but interact with the man's arguments. If you think they are so flimsy and weak, then
dismantle them and show the obvious superiority of Lutheran positions!
I wrote on Beckwith's blog that people on the Internet want to talk "at" and "about" people rather than "with" them.
I give Jack Kilcrease a lot of credit: he is willing to actually debate the issues. He's doing exactly what Josh called for in this post. Good for him. But does it take a guy who is a doctoral
candidate for a Lutheran to have confidence enough in his position to interact with Catholic soteriology and criticisms of confessional Lutheranism?
The irony is that I fully agree with Josh insofar as Lutherans (like any other sort of Christian) ought to be more confident to proclaim their message and fight for it (just as the early
so-called "reformers" did). Where are all the lay Lutheran apologists? Where do I go to find them? There are hundreds of Catholic apologists. I was asking for such Lutheran sites and was
given two: one was by Darel Paul. But when I went there a week ago I discovered that he became a Catholic, too.
Then Jay responds with the obligatory condescending put-down:
"Any other approach an you would soon but up against 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Luke 5:39"
[The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
And no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, `The old is good.'" ]
Excellent way to shut off discussion before it begins, ain't it? And so we see that Jay is as far as imaginable from the open-minded, confident approach of Jack. I understood that there
was this kind of divide in Lutheranism.
More from Josh's blog:
Eric Phillips:
Don't pretend, now, that no one has debated the issues with you. I'm one who has, so I know.
The problem is, after the debate has run a little while, your posts reach the length of treatises, and people who aren't professional apologists find they don't have the time anymore.
-------------
That's right, Eric. You are an exception to the rule. But the difference between you and I is that I don't use the tired excuse of "too many words" like you do. I follow the debate to its conclusion, no matter how much work it takes.
Now it's true I have had the time to do so, being full-time (that may soon change, btw, as I am taking on an additional job again).
The fact remains,however, that if something is supremely important (as Christianity is) and if you truly believe that your position is superior to all others, and needed for the lost above all others, then you will MAKE the time to defend it, no matter how long it takes. It may take several weeks to make an adequate reply.
But in any event, you shouldn't just complain about "it takes too long and your papers are too LONG". That rings hollow. Everyone understands time demands. I'm not disputing that: I'm only protesting against using the time and length thing to avoid doing one's intellectual and spiritual duty of defending their own Christian positions, rather than taking potshots towards those who do do so, because they are of a different persuasion.
Continued:
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your opinion. We disagree. The fact is, that I do long stuff and short stuff both. My latest book, The One-Minute Apologist (as you can see by the title) devoted two pages each, in a standard format, to 61 different topics. That's short as you can get (and very difficult to write, believe me!).
The New Catholic Answer Bible, that I co-authored, gives one page to each question. I've contributed to very short "cartoon tracts" and a pamphlet for Our Sunday Visitor that has paid very good royalties.
So I do that (and quite successfully, judging by sales). I also have many shorter papers on my blog (I recently noted that there, citing 33 of them).
My blog is different (me being an eternal nonconformist) by deliberate design. I see it as more of a hybrid between a website and a blog. I realize that many people want to make short, terse comments in comboxes. That's fine, but it's not my own style or desire.
And so I am different from the status quo. What else is new? I always am! I made it very clear from the beginning, in a post permanently listed on my sidebar, that my blog was about my writings first and foremost (as an author, article-writer, and apologist / evangelist).
Not all will care for that, of course, but one can only go by how folks respond. As I am getting 852 visitors a day, average, as of today, I think I'm doing something right. People are converting to Catholicism and telling me that their faith is being bolstered. They're buying my books (four in the top 100 in Catholic theology at amazon as I write), and so how else am I to determine whether my particular method and style is "good" or "bad"? I have objective measures to go by, and by those criteria I am doing well in my field. I say this not to "brag" but simply to respond to your gentle suggestion that somehow I am turning people off that might otherwise be disposed to engage in dialogue.
As an apologist, the effects I am having are exactly what I have striven and worked for. I have over 350 posted debates, so it is not a matter of never being able to find someone to debate with. I have simply pointed out lately that it seems to get harder and harder to do so these days. I believe there are several possible reasons for that.
I think you hit the nail on the head in one respect: academics like yourself would rather spend serious time in the academic world debating issues. That's perfectly understandable (I would probably be the same, in your shoes).
As a mere lay apologist, I'm sort of betwixt and between. I absolutely love to do discussions with "smart, educated" guys like you and CPA and Edwin Tait (those two are my very favorite dialogue partners), and my writing might be described as "semi-academic", but it often comes down to whether the academic has time or desire to do so (they certainly have the ability and tons to offer anyone who interacts with them, and I always learn a great deal
(cont.)
. . . And the non-academics don't want to have many truly meaty discussions. Hence, my complaint that I can't find any lay Lutheran apologists who are willing and able (and have time to) discuss the important issues that divide us . . .
I think you have to ask yourself: where are all these people? Why are there not Lutheran equivalents of the burgeoning online Catholic apologetics phenomenon?
And that ties directly into the initial subject matter of this post, where Josh was making the same complaint. He is exactly right in that regard. If someone believes that their brand of Christianity is The Truth, then they are obligated to spread it by any means available. The Internet offers an excellent opportunity to do that.
Good for Kevin Johnson:
Josh writes:
"In other words, to be a Catholic is to have so put your mind to death that no matter how ludicrous or self-contradictory the Vatican’s declarations are, you simply trust with absolute faith that pope is being inerrantly inspired by God."
I believe this is a huge exaggeration and one which is not necessarily true for the thinking Catholic–and I’d like to echo the objections many Catholics have taken to your assertion that converting to Catholicism or taking the papacy at its word is somehow intellectual suicide.
While I continue to have exceptional disagreements with Rome and a number of her dogmas–including that of the papacy and the exclusivity of her claims–it does not do our side any good either to continue to make extravagant and way out of the park hyperbolic claims that frankly you can’t even substantiate without the grandest of assumptions.
Thinking people do move to Rome all the time–and they don’t check their brain at the door. I don’t agree with that move people make but I also don’t agree with the sort of self-aggrandizing flag-waving for Protestantism and/or Lutheranism that would occasion your remarks.
Comment by Kevin D. Johnson — May 22, 2007 @ 10:07 am
http://www.reformedcatholicism.c...#comment-
105986
----------------------
There is hope for Kevin and the folks at Reformed Catholicism. Forward movement . . . When Tim Enloe would say virtually the same thing a year ago on the same blog, you wouldn't hear a peep from Kevin. He would even gleefully join in the bashing at times. But now he is speaking up against a fellow contributor when he says something monumentally stupid about Catholics or Catholicism, and eminently worthy of a rebuke.
Good for him. Rome wasn't built in a day. Next thing you know, I'll even be allowed on that blog! But I suppose that would be stretching warm-fuzzy ecumenism TOO far at this juncture. We can say nice things about our Catholic "brothers" but to allow one on-site (an apologist-type like me) to question fundamental Protestant assumptions; well, we can't have THAT!
Another great comment on the same blog:
#
I would add an “Amen” to Kevin’s remarks. I am a 39 Articles Anglican. I am Reformed. I am Protestant. I am catholic with a very little “c.” I would probably be one of the last of my ilk to “pope,” but Roman Catholicism is by no means untenable for the intellectual mind. I find it much more constructive to engage our Roman Catholic brothers on the basis of Scripture and ancient tradition, while encouraging them to acknowledge the unity of the Spirit that we enjoy. Basically calling them stupid is unproductive and patently false. Their continued contributions to Theology, Philosophy, Literature, and various other intellectual disciplines is undeniable. Further, their recent, demonstrated ability to resist the heresies of theological liberalism, contrary to almost all mainline Protestant denominations, speaks to the strength of their piety.
Andrew
Comment by Andrew — May 22, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
My faith in humanity is renewed . . .
I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch I would add an “Amen” to Kevin’s remarks. I am a 39 Articles Anglican. I am Reformed. I am Protestant. I am catholic with a very little “c.” I would probably be one of the last of my ilk to “pope,” but Roman Catholicism is by no means untenable for the intellectual mind. I find it much more constructive to engage our Roman Catholic brothers on the basis of Scripture and ancient tradition, while encouraging them to acknowledge the unity of the Spirit that we enjoy. Basically calling them stupid is unproductive and patently false. Their continued contributions to Theology, Philosophy, Literature, and various other intellectual disciplines is undeniable. Further, their recent, demonstrated ability to resist the heresies of theological liberalism, contrary to almost all mainline Protestant denominations, speaks to the strength of their piety.
Commenting by HaloScan
