This is much more cordial, and charitable than the guys at refcath, i hope it doesn't deteriorate. A lot of people can learn from these dicussions.
Dave,
I've been following the discussions at Evangelical Catholicity as well and find them interesting. I have been met with some resistance, as well. It seems to me a bit like swinging in a pool trying to convince someone that it's wonderful once you dive in. They seem to want to just dip their toes in and slowly get into the water on these issues. I tend to want them to dive right in. They do not seem willing to do so. They are , however, standing at the right pool, so to speak. In time, they will take the plunge, I hope.
I think it's a case of truly trying to be open-minded and ecumenical about Catholics being fellow Christians, but not yet being over the old suspicions and cynicism and misunderstandings. I think a lot of it is subconscious and people aren't even aware that they are doing it.
It's always been that way among many Protestants and won't change anytime soon. Occasionally one can achieve a mutually-respectful, enjoyable, constructive dialogue. That's what I'm trying to accomplish over there. It may not be possible, and I might very well be disappointed for the 379th time. But one can only try.
Remember, I've been banned from RefCath for a couple of years, so the fact that I can comment at all is significant, and progress, in the never-ending quest for Good Discussion with intelligent, articulate, ecumenical Protestants.
I added another round between Jonathan and myself to the post, as of 1:20 PM EST Monday.
You're a funny man, Pat Malone. I'm unaware of your attempts to join in the discussions at ECath, or of the "resistance" you've encountered, but given your penchant for subjectivism--as evidenced by your unapologetic willingness to read Luther in light of your own autobiography--it would not surprise me to find out you've simply been dismissed by other ECath writers as just one more cookie-cutter Catholic apologist who fails to engage serious Protestant thought.
You, brave Truth-loving soul that you are, want to "dive right in" while guys like Fr. Pahls and Paul Owen just want to timidly stick their toes in the water? It's much more likely that you're in over your head and don't know it, so that what you call "diving right in" is perceived by others as recklessly doing a cannonball off the highdive... into an empty pool. It's a typical problem with convert apologists, and even more so with converts who are merely followers of convert apologists.
I could smell the smugness in that comment in each and every word typed.
"...serious Protestant thought." Now there is an oxymoron.
I think the discussions have been good overall at EvangCath'ity. I always have to generate a storm of controversy when I show up anywhere. It'll either die down and not be a factor or I'll be banned. Either way, it's out of my hands, so I continue to speak freely and try to be as cordial and amiable as I can and let the chips fall where they may. If it's God's will that I am to be a regular there, then it'll happen. But I'll be speaking somewhere, and show no signs of slowing down anytime soon, rest assured!
Sigh. I was really hoping to learn something about what certain Protestants think about apostolic succession. So far, the only thing we've gotten is: "Well, it can't be what the Catholic Church teaches, because that's obviously wrong." and "How could those Catholics be so rude as to actually provide an argument from scripture."
It's very discouraging.
You are right that it has potential. They do show the classic signs of ruling the really hard questions out of bounds. Either they complain you are out of your depth or you are being offensive or you are changing the subject. Anything to avoid directly addressing issues like apostolic succession and how we can tell if someone's ordination is valid.
Tim,
Thanks for responding. You are absolutely right about me being in over my head.
Mainly I think it is a shame that such discussions cannot take place, by and large. I think it would be plain fun and enjoyable to do it, but so many Protestants avoid exegetical discussions with Catholics like the plague. They seem to enjoy it about as much as a terminal illness.
One could speculate why that is (I certainly have an opinion), but that is unarguably how it often is, in these attempted discussions. A Protestant can disagree with a fellow Protestant and that is one thing, but if they disagree with a Catholic and the Catholic prevails, then that threatens in a way one aspect of their entire belief-system, and (they feel) their person as well. In other words, the stakes are so high most Protestants who get into discussions on theology at all prefer to avoid such encounters rather than get too far into them.
I dont think there is need for that much speculation.
The fact is if a Protestant and Catholic debate the chances are high that the Catholic can produce a an equally plausible (if not better) argument from the Bible, and with that Sola Scriptura is undermined because the Catholic used the Bible to support his own position.
And one thing needs to be made especially clear here, the type of discussion I am talking about are best done in writing, not orally and on the spot. Oral debates are actually counter productive and dont allow for true exegesis to take place.
Hi Nick,
"And one thing needs to be made especially clear here, the type of discussion I am talking about are best done in writing, not orally and on the spot. Oral debates are actually counter productive and dont allow for true exegesis to take place."
I agree! That's one of the points I made in my article concerning Mr. White's debate tactics.
Paul,
Im interested in seeing this article.
Too often "oral debates" turn into who can put the opponent on the spot and force him to waste time defending cheap attacks.
Hi Nick, here is the link:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...mes-
whites.html
Dave was kind enough to let me post it on his website.
""And one thing needs to be made especially clear here, the type of discussion I am talking about are best done in writing, not orally and on the spot. Oral debates are actually counter productive and dont allow for true exegesis to take place."
I agree! That's one of the points I made in my article concerning Mr. White's debate tactics."
That's funny you mention this. I've been semi-following a combox mele over at Boogers All where the "expersts" there keep evading direct questions about their post, then tell the Catholic to go and debate White instead of bothering them with whatever. It's like a forum where anyone can go back and read what someone wrote scares the mustard out of them.
I'd join in, but the Catholic rep there is doing better than I could by a few miles, and he's so kind that my chiming in and laughing at them would just spoil the contrast you get between their attitudes. Besides, they keep deleting me. I wonder why? I just don't know how to hold back my impulse to call stupid, "stupid" when I see it. I'm not a diplomat or an evangelist / apologist. Is there an apostolate for a "wise guy?"
You have a very important role to play, CK. You're like a comedian with a serious point to make underneath. That has a long, noble history (e.g., St. Paul, Erasmus, Swift, Chesterton, Muggeridge).These guys deserve to be made fun of. What else can you do with a ridiculous position?
Paul,
That article was amazing. LONG, but still great.
I never realized that that corban rule was basically taking Num 30:2 as its foundation, a vow must be kept...falsely assuming any vow under any circumstances. If I am understanding this correctly, that is simply amazing.
The Fr. Peter Stravinskas talking was not as clear cut because Fr S is not good at "oral debate" he answered poorly under pressure to what I saw as mostly fair questions (even if the questions had problems). That being said I think it is amazing that 1 Cor 3:15 is often translated into "punishment" by those Greek dictionaries. The Onesiphorus proof is fair and I hope to see a developed case by Catholics on this. Your overall defense of purgatory was pretty good.
The end hit the nail on the head as well, you cant expect serious doctrinal differences to be "settled" once and for all in a few minutes of oral debating, it is dangerous and impractical.
I gained a lot of respect for your work after that article. Keep it up.
On an unrelated note this blog entry is at the bottom of the page and I expect it to disappear so I probably wont comment in this comment box anymore because I hate tracking down old entries after they have left the home page and gone to archives.
Hi Nick,
Thanks forthe kind review. I likewise was amazed when I first learned that the corban rule was in fact well-grounded on scripture as opposed to how it is usually portrayed. I am writing an expanded paper on the corban rule and hope to have it done soon.
As far as Fr. Stravinskas' performance, one of the things that doesn't come out in the small portion of the debate that I discussed or when one is listening to the squibs on YouTube that Mr. White has posted is the fact that at the outset, Fr. Stravinskas stated that he did not view the "debate," but rather a discussion. If you listen to the earlier parts of the debate, it becomes clear that the two men had totally different aims of argument which Mr. White used to his advantage. As a result of these two different views, Fr. Stravinskas was ill-prepared to handle an adversarial form of cross-examination and it comes across in his answers. The points that White was attempting to make were fair ones, but the manner in which he asked the questions to illustrate them was misleading.
That should have been
"view the debate as a debate, but rather a discussion."
I probably wont comment in this comment box anymore because I hate tracking down old entries after they have left the home page and gone to archives.
That's easier now, as I explained in my post about navigation on the blog.
When something you are following goes off the front page, just select the lowest current post under "recent posts & comments" on the top right of the sidebar. The "recent posts" will then show the next most recent set of posts after the front page. Then you can go to whatever one of those you like.
Once you learn the new system, it's easy as pie! Anything within a few months is just a few mouse clicks away. Scrolling is pretty much eliminated unless one is scoping out present stuff.
Another way to keep track of a post one is commenting under is what could always have been done: "save" the post by clicking on "permalink" at the bottom, and then creating a bookmark.
Commenting by HaloScan
