I took a hiatus of sorts from the internet during most the month of June (with the exception/s of a few very brief ‘peeks’), and as such, have been playing a bit of ‘catch-up’ this last week; this evening I read the following:
The common complaint of the Romanist is...
Context, context, context!
But notice, the Romanist, while complaining about "context" never takes it upon himself to demonstrate what the context is. Instead, he simply offers what he believes is a conflicting testimony to cover for his lack of explanation/understanding of the context of all the testimonies that are clearly against the view of the modern day Roman communion. In other words, he has not even made the attempt to weigh the conflicting testimonies against his claims in their context. (LINK)
Me: Sure wish that Pastor King would apply his criticisms of the “Romanist” to some of his own assessments—I see a classic ‘double-standard’ at work here—King, for instance, maintains that Ratzinger denies the material sufficiency of Scripture, even though he affirmed in his writings “a Catholic idea of sola Sciptura”, and this is from the very work that Pastor King had cited in his denial! (See this THIS THREAD for documentation of Ratzinger’s view.)
In the meantime, we are quite content to permit the Romanist to rant in protest, because we do not fear the evidence.
Me: Indeed.
Now, notice, what brings the Romanist out of the wood work the quickest to complain? Is it claims made that the Gospel has been corrupted and distorted? Is it that the deity of Christ is being challenged, or the virgin birth of the only Savior of sinners? No, what causes the Romanist to rant in protest, with all rhetorical flare and verbal violence, is anything that disputes and/or calls into question the beliefs and/or dogmas that are peculiar to the communion of Rome.
Me: Hmmm…what about the “rhetorical flare and verbal violence” concerning “anything that disputes and/or calls into question the beliefs and/or dogmas that are peculiar to” those who embrace the theology of Geneva (i.e. Genevanists)???
“And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3 – NASB)
Grace and peace,
David
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteWell, David apparently Ken has some words for you here:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-quran-prove-bible-is-true.html
In the comment section:
"Muhammad seems to have a wrong understanding of the Trinity and what Christians meant by “the Son of God”. (5:116; 5:73; 6:101; 4:171 “say not three”, etc.) I disagree with David Waltz’ assessment. It is obvious that Muhammad mis-understood what orthodox Christian was, and got his ideas from the nominal, and heretical “Christian” groups that were excommunicated and more “out there” in the frontiers of the desert areas in Syria, what is today called, “Jordan”, N. Arabic, Mesopotamia, Egyptian monk movements, etc."
You might want to stop by.
Grace and peace :)
GV19 - this is not the topic of this post.
ReplyDeleteOK, now this is odd…the opening post oof this thread shows the following at the end:
ReplyDeletePOSTED BY DAVID WALTZ AT 12:07 AM 2 COMMENTS LINKS TO THIS POST
LABELS: APOLOGETICS, CATHOLICISM
However, when I click on the “2 COMMENTS”, only 1 comment shows up—very strange—have never had this happen before…
(The above, of course, was before I posted this comment.)
Grace and peace,
David
David:
ReplyDeleteI make it a policy never to discuss theology with people who call Catholics "Romanists." Like most Catholic thinkers, I do the Reformed the courtesy of calling them what they call themselves. When that courtesy is not reciprocated, you can be sure that dialogue would be useless.
Best,
Mike
Hello Mike (Dr. Liccione),
ReplyDeleteWhat a pleasant surprise to see you back at AF (hope you know you are always welcome)…
You wrote:
>>I make it a policy never to discuss theology with people who call Catholics "Romanists." Like most Catholic thinkers, I do the Reformed the courtesy of calling them what they call themselves. When that courtesy is not reciprocated, you can be sure that dialogue would be useless.>>
Me: I think I know where you are coming from. I would say from my own online experience that a good 90% of the Reformed folk who are active on apologetic sites embrace the ancient ‘art’ of ‘double-standards’; they allow themselves certain practices that they then denounce and vilify their antagonists for attempting return the ‘favor’.
I have documented more than a few of these actions here, and yet, at least for the most part, my efforts have seem to have fallen on deaf ears…
Grace and peace,
David
Hi GV,
ReplyDeleteFor reasons totally unknown to me (I have very limited cyber knowledge/skills), your following post literally vanished from the combox until this evening; back on 07/05/2010 you posted:
>>thegrandverbalizer19 said...
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Well, David apparently Ken has some words for you here:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-quran-prove-bible-is-true.html
In the comment section:
"Muhammad seems to have a wrong understanding of the Trinity and what Christians meant by “the Son of God”. (5:116; 5:73; 6:101; 4:171 “say not three”, etc.) I disagree with David Waltz’ assessment. It is obvious that Muhammad mis-understood what orthodox Christian was, and got his ideas from the nominal, and heretical “Christian” groups that were excommunicated and more “out there” in the frontiers of the desert areas in Syria, what is today called, “Jordan”, N. Arabic, Mesopotamia, Egyptian monk movements, etc."
You might want to stop by.
Grace and peace :)
July 5, 2010 8:26 PM>>
Me: Though Ken is certainly correct when he wrote that, “this is not the topic of this post”, I do appreciate that you have brought this to my attention. It is getting late for this ‘ancient’ beachbum, so I should probably wait until tomorrow evening (have a busy day tomorrow), before I attempt to respond (want to read and digest the entire thread).
God bless,
David
DT King needs to learn that sophistry actually hurts the position he is trying to defend.
ReplyDelete