As I have explained many times on this forum – using colors is the way I emphasize certain points. I’m not angry in the least so there’s no need to tone down.
Fair enough, I’ll make a mental note that you’re not angry. But you do realize that you have to explain so many times because that’s how you come across so many times.
As for your own personal experiences – next time, state that. Don’t make sweeping generalizations about how Evangelical Protestants will convert to Orthodoxy instead of Catholicism unless you have documented proof of such a claim. It only serves to invalidate your position.
I was talking about Evangelical Protestant scholars who stay Evangelical. That’s what the OP is asking about. I did mention that you can always expect some students who go through their classes to become Orthodox (and I’ve talked to them about why they did), but I didn’t intend to steer this into a conversation about Evangelicals who convert. I’m trying very hard to talk about Evangelicals/Protestants who have not converted but are, nevertheless, scholars with a great depth of knowledge concerning the ECF’s.
We know what Catholics think of the ECF’s. Catholic converts think the exact same thing. We know what Orthodox Christians think of the ECF’s. Orthodox converts think the exact same thing. The OP is asking about what Protestant scholars think of the ECF’s. I know some of them and I have a decent idea of what the situation is like in a more general sense, so that’s what I’m talking about.
I agree. Again - I only ask that you do some research before making such sweeping generalizations.
I’m sorry you think they’re so sweeping, but at least I’m trying to stay on-topic by talking about Protestants. Your examples are far from perfect because you haven’t talked about a single Protestant scholar yet. You keep saying they used to be Protestant scholars, and that’s very true. But if that’s the only reason you picked them, why don’t you go ahead and start talking about some Protestant scholars who didn’t convert to Catholicism?
I’m really asking, and in such a way that I’d actually like an answer. Why?
Yet, again – I wasn‘t answering the OP. I was challenging you about your false claims regarding converts to Catholicism. However – you have refused to revisit your first post on this thread and have, instead chosen to attack me because I am holding you accountable for these fabrications.
When you accuse me like that, it’s really hard to take you seriously. I can see how there may have been a misunderstanding, though. From the beginning, my intention was to talk mainly about college professors at Evangelical schools who are still very much Evangelical Protestants. I can guarantee that the students who take their classes are far more likely to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy than to Catholicism, and I can say that because I know these professors and have taken their classes. That’s peripheral at best, though, and the main focus is on the scholars themselves. I also included a link to one of these scholars, and his faculty bio includes information about some of the things he’s written. Maybe you can look at it.
As to what the Protestant scholars think of the ECF’s, the byword tends to be orthodoxy, not Catholicism. That’s the bare-bones summary.
John Henry Newman WAS a Protestant Scholar who changed his views about the Catholic Church BECAUSE of the writings of the ECFs. He is therefore, a perfect example of the OP. Scott Hahn was a Protestant Theologian who changed his tune because of the ECFs. Another perfect example.
Whether they changed their views or changed their tunes, what it means is that they became irrelevant to the question being asked on this thread. The OP is not asking about Protestant scholars who changed their views about the CC because of the writings of the ECF’s. Do you see anything in the OP about that? I don’t. What I see is someone who wants to know what Protestant scholars think of the ECF’s, not Catholic converts. That’s what I’m talking about, and you’re not.
Hint: The implication is that these Protestants are still Protestants despite knowing so much about ancient Christianity. That is a question worth asking, unlike a hypothetical question about how Catholic converts respond to the ECF’s. That’s way too easy- they become Catholic, and then they’re just like you. Everyone knows that.
As I expressed earlier – the Protestant scholars I have read twist what the ECFs wrote to fit their splintering views and, at times, have chosen to simply disregard them.
I’ve seen quite a bit of that, too- although not from scholars. But I’ve also met a number of Protestant scholars (still Protestant, and therefore relevant to the OP) who do not disregard them and are deeply influenced by them, albeit not to the point of converting to either of the ancient forms of Christianity. I believe the OP was looking for information about that kind of person, rather than a convert or an apologist/polemicist whose status fails to meet that of “scholar.”
Now I have some information for you, as well as a request. First, the information. I’m not willing to talk about scholars who have converted because I don’t think it’s relevant to this thread. There you go, I’m not doing it. You can talk to someone else about it, or I might talk to you about it on a different thread at another time, but I’m not talking to you about it now on this thread.
Now the request. If you have any information about living non-Catholic scholars who have a great depth of knowledge about the ECF’s, I’d like to hear it. Provided that they are still non-Catholic, of course.
Oh, and I went ahead and made your stuff regular text. I ran out of characters at first, but deleting all that gave me an extra thousand to play with, at least. I hope you don’t mind.
