The protestant obsession with "the first Christians"

[Teflon93]

Oh garbage. Nobody’s asking you to give up what you believe, only to be capable of understanding and appreciating the other guy’s side of the story. If you are incapable or unwilling to do that, it’s your loss.

Oh, poppycock.

I grew up Episcopalian and spent years in Methodist and Pentecostal pews before joining the true Church this past Easter. Many others on this forum likewise not only understand “the other guy’s side of the story” but WERE “the other guy” for much of their lives.

It is always amusing when those who claim to be “seekers of truth” or who claim to want “civil discussion” behave in ways so contradictory to what they evince. More courage of your stated convictions would be helpful to your credibility.

And, given the schisms rending the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and looming in the Methodist communities, wouldn’t “seeing the other guy’s side of the story” be a prescription you could take to heal your own?

 

[rr1213]

It is always amusing when those who claim to be “seekers of truth” or who claim to want “civil discussion” behave in ways so contradictory to what they evince.

Agreed, and the same for those who claim to infallably possess the truth.

 

[Teflon93]

It is the point of every one of my posts since the initial remark to which you took such grave and irrelevant exception. The fact that you refuse to listen to what I have been saying consistently is not my fault.

And I have pointed out that evangelicals of a non-Calvinist stripe (such as myself) have no problem singing **a Calvinist hymn **such as “Amazing Grace.” The point I was trying to make (clumsily because it was a passing remark more than anything else) was that these “mutterings” don’t take the form of pointing out real, irreconcilable doctrinal deviations. If those were there, you wouldn’t have orthodox Catholics who see nothing wrong with “Amazing Grace.” (And since the one real doctrinal issue some have pointed to–eternal security–is also a difference between Calvinists and Wesleyans, Wesleyans would not have been able to sing the hymn either.) The reason Catholics “mutter” is that “Amazing Grace” speaks of a kind of experiential piety that makes many Catholics uncomfortable: “I once was blind, but now I see.”

Right about what? If you agree with these “mutterings,” you haven’t said so. If you want to make a doctrinal argument against “Amazing Grace,” by all means do so. I would welcome such a substantive conversation instead of** irrelevant remarks **about praise bands (not to mention the continual personal attacks). I am not saying that Catholics should sing hymns that contradict Catholic doctrine. My problem is that many Catholics are uncomfortable with evangelical piety even if they can’t really point to a doctrinal error in it.

I am not the person who responded to a remark about “Amazing Grace” with an attack on praise bands. I have not changed the subject (except in the sense that my original casual remark was unnecessary in this thread). I have been talking throughout about the kind of evangelical piety nurtured by hymns such as “Amazing Grace.”

Oh, and I do not separate doctrinal truth from experiential piety. So contrary to your suggestion earlier, the fact that I’m more uncomfortable with the thought of giving up evangelical piety than with the thought of accepting the doctrine of Trent does not mean that I don’t care about the truth. There is experiential truth as well as purely intellectual truth. The experience sung about in “Amazing Grace” is a real experience. If Catholicism denies that, too bad for Catholicism. (I actually don’t think Catholicism as a whole does deny it, particularly since the rise of the charismatic movement. But individual conversion as opposed to corporate reunion makes it hard to maintain this kind of piety.)

Edwin

Edwin’s self-refuting arguments highlighted in bold.

Apparently, for Edwin, those who respond to what he says introduce the “irrelevant”, which is wrong, while he merely introduces the “unnecessary for this thread”, which is quite alright.

Perhaps Protestants are obsessed with the first Christians because Protestant academics talk in circles, play word games, and do not put forth consistent arguments which allow one to evaluate the validity thereof.

Thankfully, the first Christians were not so muddled in thought and argument.

The first Christians likewise lacked the musical liturgy which some seem to equate with piety. They sang psalms, which we likewise sing in the Catholic Church today at Mass.

 

[Teflon93]

Agreed, and the same for those who claim to infallably possess the truth.

Or infallible spelling.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin’s self-refuting arguments highlighted in bold.

Apparently, for Edwin, those who respond to what he says introduce the “irrelevant”, which is wrong, while he merely introduces the “unnecessary for this thread”, which is quite alright.

What part of “casual remark” don’t you understand? I wasn’t claiming to refute anything anyone previously had said. You were. You posed praise bands as an answer to my remark about “Amazing Grace” which is illogical. I did not pose my statement about “Amazing Grace” as an answer to anything, simply as a qualification to a statement about reasons why moderate Protestants don’t return to Rome. Since my own reasons are slightly different from that of many others, I thought it fair to say so. I was simply trying to be honest and thorough in representing my position and that of other ecumenical Protestants.

And, of course, you still have not explained how remarks about praise bands are a response to a statement about “Amazing Grace.”

The first Christians likewise lacked the musical liturgy which some seem to equate with piety.

Again, you are consistently misrepresenting me. I never said that hymn-singing was the same thing as piety generally considered. I said that it is key to a particular expression of Christian piety. If Pope Benedict’s assurance that Protestants don’t need to abandon their heritage means anything, it must mean that this piety can be assimilated into Catholicism (with some corrections, no doubt) rather than being simply abandoned. That is my concern. I have said this consistently in every single post since my initial remark. You keep trying to make the conversation be about something else. That’s fine, but then don’t claim that you are responding to me or refuting me.

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

What part of “casual remark” don’t you understand? I wasn’t claiming to refute anything anyone previously had said. You were. You posed praise bands as an answer to my remark about “Amazing Grace” which is illogical. I did not pose my statement about “Amazing Grace” as an answer to anything, simply as a qualification to a statement about reasons why moderate Protestants don’t return to Rome. Since my own reasons are slightly different from that of many others, I thought it fair to say so. I was simply trying to be honest and thorough in representing my position and that of other ecumenical Protestants.

I’ll type more slowly.

1. Edwin claims (then doesn’t claim, then claims again) that one reason Protestants don’t become Catholics is the music.
2. Teflon93 points out that were that the case there would not be hideously awful “praise bands” in those Protestant communities which are thriving.
3. Edwin tries various sanctuaries, including mere personal preference, not MY denomination, the call for civility, changing the subject, irrelevance, etc.

All of which is well and good, but anyone wading through the thread can see the full picture, your claims below to the contrary.

Rather than simply post your own words in various posts above which refute your own hyperbolic claims, I’ll leave it for you to do so and for anyone reading so inclined.

You really ought to learn to accept feedback regarding the weakness of your argument style, though. Contrary to your many assertions that these are somehow personal attacks or ill-willed, which they are not, listening and adapting will only make you a stronger advocate for your own beliefs and ultimately make you more persuasive. There’s nothing wrong with not being a strong debater, of course, but there’s something quite wrong with believing a weakness to be a strength despite all evidence to the contrary in that it creates big blindspots for you.

And, of course, you still have not explained how remarks about praise bands are a response to a statement about "Amazing Grace."
Again, you are consistently misrepresenting me. I never said that hymn-singing was the same thing as piety generally considered. I said that it is key to a particular expression of Christian piety. If Pope Benedict’s assurance that Protestants don’t need to abandon their heritage means anything, it must mean that this piety can be assimilated into Catholicism (with some corrections, no doubt) rather than being simply abandoned. That is my concern. I have said this consistently in every single post since my initial remark. You keep trying to make the conversation be about something else. That’s fine, but then don’t claim that you are responding to me or refuting me.

Edwin

 

[Michael_Francis]

Having degenerated into a personal exchange that is off topic, this thread is now closed.