I would have said “Where in The Bible does it say that anything not in The Bible is something we cannot do, or not true”
O boy, you might just turn the listener against “Catholic” Christmas!I would have said “Where in The Bible does it say that anything not in The Bible is something we cannot do, or not true”
Or, if you want to sound friendlier just point out that The Bible does not say Jesus was born on December 25th, does not mention Christmas and it does not say “Thou shalt put up a tree, hang lights outside thy home and exchange presents for Christmas”
There already are some Fundamentalist who call Chrismas a pagan holiday. The average Evangelical, however seems to have no knowledge of the origin of the word Christmas, what it actually means, or why it was established and yet they are the most offended if store clerks don’t wish them a Merry Christmas. If you try to explain it all to them they don’t want to know. For them its a day to celebrate with family. Most don’t even have church services on Christmas Day. And yet they hang onto a celebration they don’t even understand.O boy, you might just turn the listener against “Catholic” Christmas!
:shrug:Excellent. The December 25 one is great because its easy to remember as well.I would have said “Where in The Bible does it say that anything not in The Bible is something we cannot do, or not true”
Or, if you want to sound friendlier just point out that The Bible does not say Jesus was born on December 25th, does not mention Christmas and it does not say “Thou shalt put up a tree, hang lights outside thy home and exchange presents for Christmas”
I think it is justified, too. One does not have to hold to a particular belief to understand it, respect it, and not misrepresent it (either intentionally or unintentionally).
No ,Jubilarian, you misunderstand. I said that, and still say it, because fundamentalism isn’t historic Protestant theology. Whether you get it from a church or from the radio, it isn’t going to give you a full understanding of Protestantism, because it’s a truncated, mutilated version of the tradition.Again, your understanding means a lot because a subject like this can be either hard to articulate or no individuals want to talk about it.
It really is unfortunate about losing the friends in your former church. Personally I think it stems from Protestants being indoctrinated about the “evils” of the CC. In addition, I actually had a “forum elder” on this site tell me that after 15+ years as Fundamentalist, I really had no understanding of historic Protestant theology because I often listened to Protestant radio. I guess he thought that was all I did.
No, not at all.
You said in a later post that you were a fundamentalist. . . .
Which?
No, I used him because in fact that was one of the two Christian radio stations I remember listening to in NJ.
Of historic Protestant theology? Yes, pretty much. Chuck Colson would be closest, but he is a relatively shallow thinker, for all his virtues. I don’t know who “Raoel Reese” is, but I found a “Raul Ries” on Google, who appears to be Calvary Chapel–certainly not mainstream historic Protestantism. Dobson is a pop psychologist–you surely don’t seriously think that he represents the best Protestant theology has to offer? Swindoll is a Southern Baptist preacher. McArthur represents a rather odd dispensationalist variant of neo-Puritan conservative Calvinism.
Or the falsehood, which is more to the point here. You can get truth from the names you mentioned, no doubt, along of course with error. But to be sure that the error is endemic to Protestantism as a whole you would need to engage seriously with the very best theologians Protestantism has to offer.
Not being convinced is not an assumption
Now that is an assumption. Special revelation has nothing to do with it. I just know that there’s more to Protestantism than you will ever learn from MacArthur, Swindoll, Dobson, or even Colson. Not by special revelation but simply because I have studied the subject.
And I’m happy for you. But that does not make you an expert in Protestant theology. Protestantism is much shallower than Catholicism, theologically speaking, but there are still depths that it would take at least one very intense lifetime of study to sound.
Yes Mr. Contarini, I fully understand. What is your sense of the word Fundamentalism? I use that term to imply that many Protestants take all of scripture literally. It that sense, many Protestant denominations take a Fundamentalist approach.
No, not at all. “Fundamentalism dominates Protestant radio, and often dominates the public perception of Protestantism in the U.S. generally. So don’t judge all Protestants by the ones you hear n the radio.” That’s why. Your words.
You said in a later post that you were a fundamentalist. . . .
Which?
No, I used him because in fact that was one of the two Christian radio stations I remember listening to in NJ.
Of historic Protestant theology? Yes, pretty much. Chuck Colson would be closest, but he is a relatively shallow thinker, for all his virtues. I don’t know who “Raoel Reese” is, but I found a “Raul Ries” on Google, who appears to be Calvary Chapel–certainly not mainstream historic Protestantism. Dobson is a pop psychologist–you surely don’t seriously think that he represents the best Protestant theology has to offer? Swindoll is a Southern Baptist preacher. McArthur represents a rather odd dispensationalist variant of neo-Puritan conservative Calvinism.
Please understand that I’m responding to your initial statement about how frustrated you are with Protestantism. I’m not claiming that the guys you mentioned have no value. The ones I know about (all except Reese) are all smart guys and yes, they represent relatively serious , respectable aspects of popular American evangelicalism. They do not represent the best Protestantism has to offer, except perhaps for Colson in a popularizing, relatively shallow way. And any tradition (or, in the case of Protestantism, loose family of traditions) should be judged by the best it has to offer.
Or the falsehood, which is more to the point here. You can get truth from the names you mentioned, no doubt, along of course with error. But to be sure that the error is endemic to Protestantism as a whole you would need to engage seriously with the very best theologians Protestantism has to offer.
Similarly, I’m in conversation on Facebook with an ex-Catholic who thinks he has adequately studied Catholicism because he’s read books by Pat Madrid, Karl Keating, etc. (I ran into him on Dave Armstrong’s page.) I’m trying to persuade him that these authors, fine though they are in their own way, do not scratch the surface of what Catholicism has to offer.
Not being convinced is not an assumption
Now that is an assumption. Special revelation has nothing to do with it. I just know that there’s more to Protestantism than you will ever learn from MacArthur, Swindoll, Dobson, or even Colson. Not by special revelation but simply because I have studied the subject.
And I’m happy for you. But that does not make you an expert in Protestant theology. Protestantism is much shallower than Catholicism, theologically speaking, but there are still depths that it would take at least one very intense lifetime of study to sound.
Edwin
This is not just misinformation but outright slander.
No, not at all.
“Fundamentalism dominates Protestant radio, and often dominates the public perception of Protestantism in the U.S. generally. So don’t judge all Protestants by the ones you hear n the radio.” Then don’t write words such as these.
You said in a later post that you were a fundamentalist. . . .
Which?
No, I used him because in fact that was one of the two Christian radio stations I remember listening to in NJ.
Of historic Protestant theology? Yes, pretty much. Chuck Colson would be closest, but he is a relatively shallow thinker, for all his virtues. I don’t know who “Raoel Reese” is, but I found a “Raul Ries” on Google, who appears to be Calvary Chapel–certainly not mainstream historic Protestantism. Dobson is a pop psychologist–you surely don’t seriously think that he represents the best Protestant theology has to offer? Swindoll is a Southern Baptist preacher. McArthur represents a rather odd dispensationalist variant of neo-Puritan conservative Calvinism.
Please understand that I’m responding to your initial statement about how frustrated you are with Protestantism. I’m not claiming that the guys you mentioned have no value. The ones I know about (all except Reese) are all smart guys and yes, they represent relatively serious , respectable aspects of popular American evangelicalism. They do not represent the best Protestantism has to offer, except perhaps for Colson in a popularizing, relatively shallow way. And any tradition (or, in the case of Protestantism, loose family of traditions) should be judged by the best it has to offer.
Or the falsehood, which is more to the point here. You can get truth from the names you mentioned, no doubt, along of course with error. But to be sure that the error is endemic to Protestantism as a whole you would need to engage seriously with the very best theologians Protestantism has to offer.
Similarly, I’m in conversation on Facebook with an ex-Catholic who thinks he has adequately studied Catholicism because he’s read books by Pat Madrid, Karl Keating, etc. (I ran into him on Dave Armstrong’s page.) I’m trying to persuade him that these authors, fine though they are in their own way, do not scratch the surface of what Catholicism has to offer.
Not being convinced is not an assumption
Now that is an assumption. Special revelation has nothing to do with it. I just know that there’s more to Protestantism than you will ever learn from MacArthur, Swindoll, Dobson, or even Colson. Not by special revelation but simply because I have studied the subject.
And I’m happy for you. But that does not make you an expert in Protestant theology. Protestantism is much shallower than Catholicism, theologically speaking, but there are still depths that it would take at least one very intense lifetime of study to sound.
Edwin
“Fundamentalism dominates Protestant radio, and often dominates the public perception of Protestantism in the U.S. generally. So don’t judge all Protestants by the ones you hear n the radio.” Really? These are your words.
“Fundamentalism dominates Protestant radio, and often dominates the public perception of Protestantism in the U.S. generally. So don’t judge all Protestants by the ones you hear n the radio.” Really? These are your words.
Fundamentalist as in a literal interpretation of scripture at all times. This does not detract that I dabbled in some denominations and immersed myself in others.You said in a later post that you were a fundamentalist. . . .
Baptist, Presbyterian, Nazarene, Episcopal, “Non Denominational”, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Reformed.
You used Camping right off the bat. I have shown you otherwise. How you didn’t remember that WMCA, the biggest AM Protestant station in NY didn’t broadcast Harold camping, I don’t know.
Your thoughts on Colson are an opinion and quite judgmental I might add. Yes, I spelled Ries’ name wrong. In addition, this is a list of a few names. Over the years many voices have preached on this station. My purpose was to show that I was immersed in Protestant thought based on a radio station. I don’t claim some great authoritative theology from it.
I appreciate the first sentence, but I still disagree in that these fellows don’t represent a portion of the Protestant faith. They do. Again, many others were on the radio.
You are drawing quick conclusions from my 15+ year journey through the world of Protestantism.
I claim life experience, not necessarily that I’m a Protestant theologian.
Possibly, but it sure felt that way.Not being convinced is not an assumption
Yes of course there is more to it then the handful of names I mentioned. I have studied somewhat myself.
“Expert” is a far reaching term meant to dramatize my original point. Not necessary sir. I lived it and studied it. You may have certain knowledge that I don’t have and vice versa .
Of course they are. Nowhere did I suggest that your view of Protestantism was based solely on the radio. You initially responded by saying that in fact the radio was representative of Protestantism as a whole. So you clearly understood what we were disputing about.
Sure. If you managed to be a fundamentalist and an Episcopalian at once, that was quite a feat
Clearly you got around. . . . OK–you’ve convinced me that you had experience of a lot more than just fundamentalism.
Because I don’t listen to AM much?
Those were just the two stations I remember listening to. I don’t in fact listen to “Christian radio” that often since moving in a Catholicish direction, but I did listen to it a lot growing up in East Tennessee.That’s like saying, “water is wet.” What else would they be? And is that meant to be a criticism?
“Judgmental”? To say that he wasn’t a particularly profound theologian? Kngdoms in Conflict is a very good book and was very helpful to me. But Colson isn’t going to be on any informed person’s list of the greatest Protestant theologians of the 20th century.
Of course they do. Several different portions in fact. But all variants of populist American evangelicalism, which is the point I’m trying to make here.
I am attempting to avoid drawing conclusions. I was trying to raise questions about whether your “frustration” was with Protestantism in its deepest and richest forms or just with pop American evangelicalism/fundamentalism.
Okay. You made some good points, its all good. I appreciate some of the understanding. Merry Christmas.Of course they are. Nowhere did I suggest that your view of Protestantism was based solely on the radio. You initially responded by saying that in fact the radio was representative of Protestantism as a whole. So you clearly understood what we were disputing about.
Sure. If you managed to be a fundamentalist and an Episcopalian at once, that was quite a feat
Clearly you got around. . . . OK–you’ve convinced me that you had experience of a lot more than just fundamentalism.
Because I don’t listen to AM much?
That’s like saying, “water is wet.” What else would they be? And is that meant to be a criticism?
“Judgmental”? To say that he wasn’t a particularly profound theologian? Kngdoms in Conflict is a very good book and was very helpful to me. But Colson isn’t going to be on any informed person’s list of the greatest Protestant theologians of the 20th century.
Of course they do. Several different portions in fact. But all variants of populist American evangelicalism, which is the point I’m trying to make here.
I am attempting to avoid drawing conclusions. I was trying to raise questions about whether your “frustration” was with Protestantism in its deepest and richest forms or just with pop American evangelicalism/fundamentalism.
This discussion has gone further than it needed to, and I’m sorry for making too big a deal out of it. All I was trying to suggest, initially, was that if you don’t want to be frustrated with Protestantism as a whole, you might consider that there are better things in Protestantism than you will get from the radio. That doesn’t mean that you were wrong to abandon Protestantism. I focused on the radio because Protestant radio drives me nuts too (though as I said, so does Catholic radio most of the time. . . . I wish they would have more liturgy and music and less talkiness, and wouldn’t try to make everything sound so cut and dried).
Edwin
Yes, yes, yes! 1 year (I think) and counting to see if I “backslide” or not.like a reformed smoker?
Thank you for your response. I can identify with many things you say. I went from one Protestant church to the other and yes, it seems some pastors had a huge ego. Many Protestants reinforced my already poor understanding of the CC. I was raised Catholic and left in my late twenties. I bought into the “man made rules” spiel and became a vehement anti Catholic. The “routine” aspect was boring to me too, but it was because I didn’t want to embrace what was occurring before me.