|
Previous Posts
One Final Word
My dear friend Michele slipped into eternity on Wednesday, February 1. She was a remarkable woman who left a legacy of faith, determination, and love. For three years she courageously battled the ovarian cancer that eventually robbed her of her life. A few days before she died, one of her docto
posted 8:43:41pm Feb. 10, 2012 |
read full post
»
The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated
My husband told me that there are rumors that I've died. I'm happy to report that I'm still very much alive. My cancer has gone to stage four but we are controlling it with chemo, the cancer numbers are currently in the normal range. I've stopped blogging to concentrate on my daughters and writing a
posted 7:07:55pm Aug. 23, 2010 |
read full post
»
An update and a prayer request
Several people have asked about Michele's condition, and have promised to pray for her. On her behalf, I thank you for that. I spoke with her a little while ago, and she asked that I come here and tell you what's going on, and to ask you to pray for her. She isn't able to post here herself right
posted 4:55:36pm Apr. 06, 2010 |
read full post
»
Rest in peace, Internet Monk.
A man known in the cyber world as The Internet Monk, has died. Michael Spencer lost his battle with cancer tonight.
My prayers go out for his family and for all those who loved and will miss him. :(
posted 11:52:00pm Apr. 05, 2010 |
read full post
»
The peace that passes all understanding, pt. 1
I'm coming out of my normal hiding place to make a few comments.
The internet is a strange place. It is often a wonderful place, a helpful place, a unifying place. But it is also alienating, cold, and is the perfect medium in which to depersonalize others.
Through it, I have seen people reach out
posted 4:39:08pm Mar. 25, 2010 |
read full post
»
|
posted May 4, 2009 at 11:00 am
I looked over the site and I can’t say it adds much to Catholic-Protestant debate, this all feels so historical. Its time to move on to higher/lower/source criticism of scripture. Already, these approaches have ended these types of debates at the academic level. When you look at scripture with these types of criticism, you can jettison all the arguments put forth in that site and any Reformed counter-arguments as well.
posted May 4, 2009 at 11:43 am
I looked at the site at some length, and it’s obviously a Traditionalist site. “Traditionalist”, in the Catholic context, means those groups that to one degree or another prefer the Latin Mass, are less involved in the ecumenical movement, and reject fully or in part the changes of the Second Vatican Council (or at least dispute the implementation of these changes). The more moderate Traditionalists want the Church to move back to a more pre-Vatican II understanding. There are other groups, such as the Society of St. Pius X which have broken away from the Church, and the most extreme, such as the Society of St. Pius V, are sedevacantist. That is, they hold that the Popes since John XXIII are impostors and the seat of Peter is vacant.
This site doesn’t seem to be breakaway, but the definitely don’t represent the mainstream of Catholic thought. It is good, though, as was pointed out, that they are at least honest about their debating style.
posted May 4, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Still waiting for my comment from last night to be approved …
it’s obviously a Traditionalist site.
It seems to me conservatives best speak to conservatives. And lots of prayer. Think St. Monica.
Or, said another way, I don’t believe DML would get very far using any sort of literary “criticism” among Christians who take the Bible seriously, as the ipsissima verba of God.
Ah, MzEllen should chime in as she’s seen tons of this … done not-so-good.
posted May 4, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I’ve been taking a nice nap…
shoot – I’ve done some it not-so-good.
There are a lot of places that I believe the Roman Catholic Church is in error, but the bottom line (for me) is that I don’t want to be the first one to question another’s salvation over denomination.
I fall to it once in a while, but have been attempting to be way more careful – when somebody starts flinging personal insult and personal accusation, I tune out. That person becomes less credible to me.
I have no hesitation to “attack” a belief or position, but attacking the person is different.
This pertains to religion and politics. The other “rule” that I don’t often break is that I don’t go to the websites of those I disagree with in order to debate. I’ll debate here, where the host is a person I agree with, or a site that specifically invites debate. I invite debate on my own blog and welcome it. But I choose to not risk being rude to my host.
Sorry, this has little or nothing to do with the OP, except that if you choose to debate this topic, you can’t do it without starting from scratch.
You cannot argue from the catechism with me, because I don’t accept it as an infallible authority.
I cannot assume that I can argue only from Scripture, because Roman Catholics don’t accept Sola Scriptura.
Shoot…I generally start with the definitions…if you cannot even agree on the definition of “Sola Scriptura”, how are you going to support to deny it?
Ditto “total depravity”.
In my own tradition, I don’t include “sola catechisma” as the final sola. I will use it as a reference or illustration, but not as an authority.
You have to debate from a common understanding, else you are talking past each other…
My realization came when I was debating eternal security…I asked, “so then…it’s get it by faith and keep it by works?” the answer was…”yes.”
posted May 5, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Alright, here I go, trying to recreate my comment from Sunday night that got lost in the approval phase …
#12 is found in Currie’s book. On page 120, he draws a parallel with Marcion. I hope he has since mellowed in his Catholicism.
I like Chesterton’s argument in Orthodoxy:
An historic institution, which never went right, is really quite as much of a miracle as an institution that cannot go wrong. … For instance, it was certainly odd that the modern world charged Christianity at once with bodily austerity and with artistic pomp. … Perhaps (in short) this extraordinary thing is really the ordinary thing; at least the normal thing, the centre. Perhaps, after all, it is Christianity that is sane and all its critics that are mad – in various ways.