C
Church_Militant
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Edwin << When was the last time you heard an ex-Catholic telling his or her conversion story on EWTN? Edwin >>
Jeff Cavins. He was Catholic, then ex-Catholic, then Catholic again. In fact he hosted Mother Angelica Live for a number of years. So they just love the **ex-ex-**Catholics giving their stories, just not the **ex-**Catholics.
Plenty other examples found here.
Ah yes, Gary Michuta was just on Journey Home speaking on his “Bigger” book on the OT canon.
Phil P
Jeff Cavins. He was Catholic, then ex-Catholic, then Catholic again. In fact he hosted Mother Angelica Live for a number of years. So they just love the **ex-ex-**Catholics giving their stories, just not the **ex-**Catholics.
Plenty other examples found here.Ah yes, Gary Michuta was just on Journey Home speaking on his “Bigger” book on the OT canon.
Phil P
M
mgrfin
Guest
Probably the last time I hear that Paul Crouch and Benny Hinn donated money to their Church.
C
cpayne
Guest
This doctrinal dispute has already been revuted.
Z
zemi
Guest
Hm… interesting Koukl’s reasoning of RCC not existing till AD 350 
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
That’s one predictable line of attack against the Church: that She was an invention, a political creation, Who had no relation to the Early Church. Most often we see that Constantine created the ‘Roman’ Church. And of course then some dominoes go down with that: apostolic succession, authority, primary of jurisdiction.Hm… interesting Koukl’s reasoning of RCC not existing till AD 350
Then the Early Church comes up for grabs – and re-interpretation.
Big question in my mind though: when did the Reformers come into existence? And what makes their claims for fidelity to the Early Church more credible than the Church’s claims? This is Koukl’s sleight of hand: look at my right hand weaving a merry tale while my left hand kidnaps the Early Church.
H
heisenburg
Guest
The thing that always bothered me about this (other than a glaring lack of knowledge of history) is that if this is true, what happened between 350->1500’s
Was there no Church?
Since there was no one that believed properly, where there no Christians?
Did Christs Church vanish from the earth?
Was Christ Wrong?
To say the the ‘Catholic Church’ did not exist until after 350, also says that Christianity died around 350. Remember, there were no other Christian sects at this time. And those that did come and go were frighteningly heretical, even to a protestant.
Many of those that take this uninformed position look at the time of the Nicean Councils as a horrible, and devastating time.
However, if you believe that Christ would never leave us to the wolves, then this is actually a beautiful time for there were only 2 versions of Christianity. Arianism, and Creed Christianity.For Christ to keep his work, one had to be completely true, and the other completely false. They both cannot be false. and they both cannot be true.
Since Arianism has died, that means Creed Christianity is correct
It is a point in time where any Christian following can say do my beliefs line up with what was stated in the Creed. If the answer is no, then you know your beliefs are false because, even if you do not beleive in the authority of the Church, the authority of Christ promise not to abandon us should tell you that creed Christianity MUST be true.
If the Creed is wrong theologically in any way, then Christianity is as a whole false because this would mean Christ promise was not kept. This would be impossible if Christ was truly the second part of the trinity.
But I digress…
Back to the thread
In Christ
T
Teflon93
Guest
That is precisely your sleight of hand, which is why I pointed it out.
One may be a Protestant apologist without being an anti-Catholic. One may also be a Protestant apologist and an anti-Catholic. James White is an example of the latter. I am sure there are many examples of the former.
Anyone so inclined may follow the thread. As the discussion is not personal, I do not take offense at anything. I do point out wherever you engage in sleight of hand, such as asserting I have taken offense, or justifying your own rudeness by claiming it is “in kind”. I asked whether you listened to the debate because you stated something directly in contradiction to a discussion prominently featured within it. You apparently define asking such a question as rudeness. I do not concede that it was, despite your sleight of hand above. Anyone may reread the thread and come to their own conclusions.
Now I have to ask whether you read my response. I didn’t assert Koukl was surprised, but that he didn’t understand Beckwith’s response. He asked the question, Beckwith gave the correct answer, and Koukl tried to steamroller over him.
Just to give an example of how you misrepresent points made by others, I’ll quote my own post on this point:
I’ll presume this was an honest error on your part. You might want to review that portion of the debate to test my proposition that Koukl didn’t know what Beckwith meant.
I am not an EWTN archivist, so I don’t know. I would hope that EWTN wouldn’t invite someone on under the pretense of sharing their conversion story only to attempt to turn it into a debate, however.
Why don’t you dig into how often Protestants have Catholics on in the meantime? I can help you run the statistical tests to demonstrate whether Protestants are more charitable to a statistically significant degree than Catholics on this score.
Without data, though, it’s just another unfounded assertion, isn’t it?
One might say that the difference between apologetics and polemics is the relative proportion of unfounded assertions vs documented ones.
Which brings us to your last uncharitable, throwaway line:
If quoting Luther is making outrageous allegations about him, perhaps your inability to discern apologetics from polemics should be the question. You are always welcome to quote me on these allegedly outrageous allegations I have made about him.
I’d be interesting in seeing where I’ve used the 30,000 Protestant denominations numbers ONCE, much less 30,000 times.
Otherwise, I’ll look forward to your retraction.
T
Teflon93
Guest
And I’ve always found it funny that Constantine never claimed credit for founding the Catholic Church.
One would think he would—Roman emperors were not renowned for passing up honors.
What’s more telling is the need Protestants have of explaining away a millennium and a half of Christian history. Given no need for tradition or magisterium, one would think there would be no need to do so. Wonder what calls them to do it?
Likewise, given Protestant claims of salvation, why would they get so nervous that Beckwith cross the Tiber? Does Koukl think Beckwith is damned now? If once saved always saved, why would someone born again becoming Catholic somehow be cause for concern?
T
Teflon93
Guest
When have Catholics ever been on these shows?
There are many, many more Protestant television programs than Catholic ones, at least in America. Is there any evidence these are more ecumenical than EWTN?
Televangelists certainly don’t seem to invite Protestant dissenters on, much less Catholic ones. Anyone ever seen a Methodist on Kenneth Copeland or T.D. Jakes?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
How so? Please define the difference…I’m called an anti-catholic many times, while in turn I don’t label people anti-protestant…So I am interested in your POV.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Bingo!
T
Teflon93
Guest
Let me start by saying I would not call you anti-Catholic myself, based on your posting here.
I think the difference between Protestant apologist and anti-Catholic is the difference between one whom questions the truth of Catholic teaching and one who lies about or grossly distorts Catholic teaching.
The latter claims Catholics worship Mary, for example, while the former challenges the basis for the Assumption of Mary, intercession of the saints, and the like.
There is a separate issue of anti-Catholic bigotry, but that is not related to this topic except tangentially.
C
Contarini
Guest
Teflon,
Sorry for my participation in this unpleasant and irrelevant subthread. I am reacting to a whole set of attitudes I see among posters here, and you are right that it is unfair to blame them on you personally. I also apologize for my inaccurate memory of what you said about Koukl’s reaction to the temporal punishment issue, and you may well be right that he didn’t understand the issue–but as I have pointed out repeatedly he clearly understood that purgatory was about temporal punishment. This really isn’t a matter of great importance, and I will drop it now!
In Christ,
Edwin
Sorry for my participation in this unpleasant and irrelevant subthread. I am reacting to a whole set of attitudes I see among posters here, and you are right that it is unfair to blame them on you personally. I also apologize for my inaccurate memory of what you said about Koukl’s reaction to the temporal punishment issue, and you may well be right that he didn’t understand the issue–but as I have pointed out repeatedly he clearly understood that purgatory was about temporal punishment. This really isn’t a matter of great importance, and I will drop it now!
In Christ,
Edwin
T
Teflon93
Guest
Edwin- thank you, and let me take the opportunity to apologize likewise for diverting the thread too far from the topic and for failing to read your responses as charitably as a brother in Christ ought ot.
My reading of Koukl’s reaction differs from yours, but of course that doesn’t mean mine is the correct one. Others may listen and discern for themselves.
That said, please continue to feel free to point out and explain errors you find in my arguments. We all serve Truth here, and the last thing I want to do is mislead or distract anyone. I am always grateful at the level of knowledge and discourse here and never fail to learn something new as a result.
Certainly, Dr. Beckwith amply demonstrates the charity in argument to which we ought to all aspire in the recorded discussion and in his posts. Passionate argument certainly need not be personal.
J
jpaul
Guest
*Dr. Frank,
Peace and all-good!
We are very much happy to welcome you home.
God bless you and your family!
Ave Maria!
Joseph Paul Adorable*
S
SisterMoon
Guest
I would like to speak to “giving one’s testimony” after conversion from my own standpoint.
I “swam the Tiber” this year, after 10 years of seeking. There were a lot of elements that went into this journey, many turning points, a-ha moments, etc…
Now that I’m “here” though, it’s not nearly as important for me to know everything. As a Protestant, I felt I had to study and test, study and test. Now, since I believe in the authority of the church, I can just relax and enjoy the ride…and spend more time in prayer and adoration. I’m home.
Plus, I think I must communicate like Beckwith. It seems that he needs time to weave his responses, building on the steps he’s laid out before. Not being able to communicate this way put him at a disadvantage. He is not the spitfire, Bible thumper guy. He’s a thinker, a muser, a philosopher. Like, say, Peter Kreeft, who always needs a lot of time to deliver his talks.
He’s not Tim Staples. Tim Staples is Tim Staples. Francis Beckwith is Francis Beckwith. I think he’s amazed at the story of his life so far, and that is what resonates with him. That is what he wants to share.
And again, once you’ve accepted the authority of the church, you don’t "have’ to prove anything anymore. Speaking for myself, I’ve almost forgotten my protestations and why I had them in the first place. I don’t think I could argue against a Protestant, because the whole thing just seems absurd to me now.
That being said, I was proud of him for stepping into the fire. It probably was a real wake up call as to how far he’s come. He did as well as could be expected in an antagonistic environment. The host was so uncomfortable to listen to, just waiting to jump on him. Beckwith was not afforded the opportunity to make a coherent, thoughtful explanation of his reversion. Why??? Because it would have been too threatening.
God bless you, Francis!
I “swam the Tiber” this year, after 10 years of seeking. There were a lot of elements that went into this journey, many turning points, a-ha moments, etc…
Now that I’m “here” though, it’s not nearly as important for me to know everything. As a Protestant, I felt I had to study and test, study and test. Now, since I believe in the authority of the church, I can just relax and enjoy the ride…and spend more time in prayer and adoration. I’m home.
Plus, I think I must communicate like Beckwith. It seems that he needs time to weave his responses, building on the steps he’s laid out before. Not being able to communicate this way put him at a disadvantage. He is not the spitfire, Bible thumper guy. He’s a thinker, a muser, a philosopher. Like, say, Peter Kreeft, who always needs a lot of time to deliver his talks.
He’s not Tim Staples. Tim Staples is Tim Staples. Francis Beckwith is Francis Beckwith. I think he’s amazed at the story of his life so far, and that is what resonates with him. That is what he wants to share.
And again, once you’ve accepted the authority of the church, you don’t "have’ to prove anything anymore. Speaking for myself, I’ve almost forgotten my protestations and why I had them in the first place. I don’t think I could argue against a Protestant, because the whole thing just seems absurd to me now.
That being said, I was proud of him for stepping into the fire. It probably was a real wake up call as to how far he’s come. He did as well as could be expected in an antagonistic environment. The host was so uncomfortable to listen to, just waiting to jump on him. Beckwith was not afforded the opportunity to make a coherent, thoughtful explanation of his reversion. Why??? Because it would have been too threatening.
God bless you, Francis!
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
I am with you Sister! I have found myself in the same frame of mind. At first I was ready to defend my journey and my decisions, bring it on! That combatant spirit just didn’t last very long, I guess the Protestant in me died pretty quickly.
Now, a year later, it all seems so silly to me, personally I mean. I am at complete peace and the arguing and hostility toward me is just baffling to me now. They can read my defense in the way I proceed with my life in Christ and His Church, period.
Welcome Home SisterMoon.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
They believe there was a Church before 350 AD but that it was not the ‘Roman’ Church. So that then begs the question, as you say, what happened between 350 AD and 1500?
Well it certainly wasn’t a case of ‘preaching from the rooftops’ which btw was made infinitely easier by Constantine’s legalization of Christianity.
Yeah, but your confusing me with logic here.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Why? Coupla reasons.
Some have perceived the swim to have left a power vacuum and have started jockeying for position. That can get a mite scarey when careers are on the line.
Also let’s not forget that many many Reformers deeply respected the man – some out of the usual hero-worship that passes for scholarship in some circles – but many more who realized that what he was saying was not only true but genuine in a very personal way. The nervousness is about an afternoon swim turning into a water polo tournament.
Oh! Incisive observation!
The only thing I can offer is perhaps for some he has entered that twilight zone where folks “were never actually saved in the first place”. You know: that lost zone of inconvenient truths?Ah well. I hope everybody is having a great afternoon. We have a breeze coming in off the lake. And everything has that blue light that August gives.
- Status