I do think the converts are a bit of a strange beast. At least, as a convert, I think I must some across as strange to protestants. I know I would have thought myself stange if I had met myself through some sort of time warp.
Converting involves a ton of theological data much of which the average convert is only scratching the surface of but when all the different areas are taken together it represents quite a bit of effort.
Secondly it involves rapid spiritual growth. You want to keep going with the interaction because you feel you are getting deeper into your faith and closer to God all the time. It is a very exciting thing to go though.
Thirldly, there are a ton of protestants who you feel could benefit from your insights but it is very hard to reach them. This is quote frustrating because you see such potential for growth in other people's lives but it is so hard to get them started. They are closed to Catholic thinking and it is very hard to open them up.
So when a convert like me goes over to a blog like Reformed Catholicsm I get out of my depth very quickly. When I do I probably do seem like I am in a bubble because there are certain things I trust but I don't know how to defend them in a way that stands up to scholarly scrutiny.
Some of the things ring true. Like finding justifications for Catholic doctrines that no Catholic would ever use. I have probably done that. I guess I am learning not to spend time on blogs like that. Still I have had people come to my blog after reading my comments there. Who knows what is best. All I know is I spend way to much time at it. There is so much to read and then writing always takes longer than I think it will.
Okay Randy, I have to ask: what does "Purify Your Bride" refer to, and how exactly does one go about doing that?
At least you're allowed to comment there, Randy. That's a start!
Dave, I was kind of hoping you would take on his critiques of the "Queen Mother" argument. I've never felt that this argument for calling Mary "Queen of Heaven" was particularly persuasive. It really does seem to be worthy of precisely the kind of critique that a RefCath might offer.
I look to Revelations 12 for scripture giving Mary the title "Queen of Heaven," but that's a completely different discussion.
Maybe you could take on Kevin on that topic, and see if the "Queen Mother" argument is really sound.
I stated in the paper that I would be happy to discuss particulars if Kevin shows a willingness to interact, unlike the last year and a half or whatever it was since he decided to ban me and ignore any critique I offer. This was simply a general reply.
I don't believe I've written much at all on this particular topic (one of the last remaining topics in Mariology that I have yet to write about).
But I would say that it is the sort of argument that Protestants are in a weak position to appreciate in the first place, because it is based on biblical analogy and multiple meanings of passages, and Protestants have an inadequate understanding of that because they reject much of traditional patristic and medieval biblical interpretation (long discussion).
That being the case, oftentimes, we will feel that a biblical line of argument has more force, whereas the Protestant will think it is of little relevance or force at all because they reject the sort of argument or category of thought that this reasoning belongs to. I've often noted this. It has to do with differing presuppositions and methods (along with the usual Protestant hostility to almost anything Marian).
Steve Ray has now responded at length (30 pages), defending his assertions about the Assumption and Mary as Queen Mother:
http://www.catholicconvert.com/
P...onAndQueen2.pdf
The portion on Queen Mother starts on p. 16 and goes to the end, for some 15 pages worth. I will probably link to it on my Mary page, since he has worked so hard on it.
By the way, could someone here be so kind as to write a comment over at RefCath, informing Kevin that I have replied to him (since I am banned there)? Thanks!
The "Queen Mother" argument is pretty solid, in my opinion, based on a valid application of Catholic principles of biblical interpretation. Indeed, if the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then a Christian is bound to wonder why the Holy Spirit makes such a big deal about women giving birth to special sons. Eve and her Promised Seed, Sarah's son Isaac, Manoah's wife and Samson, Hannah and Samuel, the Shunammite Woman and her resurrected son (a story that was deliberately written so that the reader could see the parallels with the story of Isaac on Mount Moriah), the Virgin and her son Immanu-El, St. Elisabeth and St. John the Baptist, and the Blessed Virgin and Jesus. The theme is clear and strong throughout Scripture, and it stands to reason that if Jesus is the Son of David, there would be something significant about all of those Queen Mothers mentioned in the history of David's dynasty. The only reason I never noticed it before is because I had been trained to emphasise different scriptural teachings, and hadn't been shown how the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. But once I was shown the theme, it was unmistakeable.
Mr. Armstrong, would you provide links to your critiques of Mathison's, White's, Webster's and King's arguments for sola scriptura? I would very much like to read those. Thank you.
Just go to these two pages and look for debates with these guys:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...anon-
index.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...index-
page.html
The King debate was about Cardinal Newman and development, though, as were my two refutations of Webster. I've dealt with many patristic "proofs" offered by Webster and King in other debates, such as with Jason Engwer.
Kevin on his blog:
Roman Catholic “e-apologists” work against any conception of Reformed catholicity and worse still present to most evangelicals a caricatured view of Roman Catholicism that keeps them from really understanding what the important issues are in regards to these things.
Comment by Kevin D. Johnson — August 22, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
-------------------
LOL! Imagine if I claimed that Reformed Catholics presented a "caricatured" view of Reformed Catholicism and couldn't even be trusted to present an accurate picture of their own beliefs, and that I knew better what their beliefs were than they themselves!
By the way, could someone here be so kind as to write a comment over at RefCath, informing Kevin that I have replied to him (since I am banned there)? Thanks!
Done.
BTW: Do they worship those images in the stained glass windows? Looks like idol worship to me.
LOL and thanks!
I couldn't find it. Where is it? Or was it deleted too? 
I posted in the blogcomments oon0the QM debate. putting kidsTo bed and phone surfing now. will look tomorrow.. the post /was/ there.
Commenting by HaloScan
