Posted on 08/06/2007 7:56:19 AM PDT by Gamecock
"This Bereans passage has been commandeered by Fundamentalists for too long, and it is time Catholics reclaim it." —Former Baptist Steve Ray, This Rock, March, 1997, p. 24.
|
Steve Ray is a nice guy. At least, we’ve had some civil discourse in the past via the Internet. He seems like an honest man who is convinced that the position he now embraces—Roman Catholicism—is the true and proper position to take. I start by acknowledging this, for I don’t want anyone to think that I bear him any malice. I say this because beyond my recognizing his personal civility, I find little else in his written works that is commendable.
Steve Ray is the first person to tell you he is not a scholar. He’s a layman who, as a Baptist, decided he needed to convert to the Roman Catholic faith. He has written a book, Crossing the Tiber, in which he defends his choice. As soon as I obtained the book, I noted a number of glaring deficiencies in the work: numerous errors in representing Protestant theology, a complete failure to interact with any level of Protestant apologetic response, etc. I informed Mr. Ray of this by e-mail.
In response, Mr. Ray indicated that his book simply developed out of a long letter to his parents defending his choice to leave the Baptist faith and embrace the Roman. He asserted that it was not intended as an in-depth analysis of Protestant theology. This did not exactly satisfy my concerns with how often it completely missed the point of the debate, but I certainly accepted that this is how Mr. Ray views his book.
It was with some real consternation, therefore, that I read the March, 1997 issue of This Rock magazine, published by Catholic Answers. I have long criticized Catholic Answers for using a straw-man view of sola scriptura in their publications—a practice that, despite my criticisms, they continue unabated. But in this issue we find an article titled, Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura written by none other than Steve Ray. Now, an article in This Rock cannot logically be considered an extension of a letter to Mr. Ray’s parents. This is "new" material. The article describes Mr. Ray as one who engages "in apologetics work in Michigan." This is a work specifically designed to be used to convince Protestants that their belief in sola scriptura is in error. Hence, I expected a little higher standard in something like this.
The Old Anti-Catholic Ploy
Unfortunately, though Mr. Ray does his best to avoid inflammatory speech in personal conversation, the same is not the case regarding his article in This Rock. While avoiding a lot of the "shots" that mark the normal Catholic Answers type material (see examples elsewhere on our web page, including our response to a CA article on sola scriptura, as well as our rebuttal of a recent attack by James Akin), Mr. Ray falls prey to the old "anti-Catholic" ploy. It’s a false form of argumentation that Catholic Answers likes to use with regularity (they are hardly the only ones to do so, of course!). It’s an invalid attempt to claim the "high ground" by calling anyone who disagrees with you and with your position an "anti-Catholic," while referring to yourself merely as an "apologist." Hence, you make your opponent look like the aggressor, while you are the defender, even when, in point of fact, you are attacking their position (while failing to do a whole lot to actually define and defend your own).
Mr. Ray begins by identifying Dave Hunt’s organization as an "anti-Catholic" organization. Later he makes the term "Fundamentalist" a synonym for "anti-Catholic," and uses the phrase "anti-Catholic" two more times, saying, "From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded" and later, "Anti-Catholics love to associate themselves with the Bereans. . . ." It is quite honestly a shame to see Mr. Ray falling into the "us vs. them" mentality so soon after his conversion (1994). I truly doubt he refers to himself as an "anti-Protestant," so why he would adopt such terminology of others is difficult to understand, outside, that is, of the polemics of Roman Catholic apologists. I would like to call upon Mr. Ray (and all Roman Catholic apologists) to cease and desist in their use of such a ploy.
Sola Scriptura: Misrepresented AGAIN
The main criticism that can be lodged against Mr. Ray's work is quite simple: he does not accurately portray (or possibly even understand) the Protestant position that he has abandoned, and is now intent upon attacking. This is a common problem in Roman Catholic apologetics: and the fact that many Protestants don't know their faith very well, and hence allow such misrepresentations to pass without comment or correction, only exacerbates the situation.
Now, immediately, someone may say, "Yes, well, both sides always say that about the other." That's true. But there is a major difference: when we say someone has misrepresented the Protestant position, we demonstrate this by documenting what the Protestant position is, and how, in context, the Roman Catholic writer should have known better. We have explained what sola scriptura is over and over again in our apologetic writings and books. Mr. Ray owns my books on Roman Catholicism. He could have (if he wished) availed himself of many sources that would have saved him from the error of misrepresentation and straw-man argumentation. But he did not avail himself of those sources. Why? Only he can answer that question.
We begin with the following presentation:
It is hard to know where to begin. This is substantially the same kind of presentation made in his book, Crossing the Tiber. However, in that book, he accurately identified the Reformation as taking place in the 16th, not the 15th, century. Since he claims Luther developed the doctrine, and Luther did not even begin his theological work until (at the earliest) 1510, how Ray can speak of the "fifteenth century" is difficult to understand. But this is just the beginning of the errors. Martin Luther didn't invent the doctrine, of course. Even if Ray disputes every single statement from the Fathers that I have provided in written sources (see my chapter in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, 1995, Soli Deo Gloria Publishers, pp. 27-62), and rejects every Waldensian statement concerning the doctrine, he would still have to deal with the plain words of John Wyclif, who obviously believed in the doctrine and put it into practice. Such would place the doctrine, even under such an artificial construction as being the invention of Wyclif, in the fourteenth century, more than a century before Luther. If Mr. Ray encountered a Protestant who, in discussing Roman Catholic dogmatic formulations, misidentified the source of such formulations, and misplaced the dates by centuries, would he not have reason to question the validity of that person's conclusions?
But far more damaging is the simple fact that Mr. Ray does not know what sola scriptura is. Sola scriptura does not say the Bible is the "sole source of revelation." Such is a basic, fundamental mistake on the level of saying, "The Immaculate Conception means Mary didn't need a Savior." Such would indicate that the person making the statement has never seriously interacted with any apologetic defense of the Immaculate Conception. In the same way, Mr. Ray's writings show a consistent pattern as well: he has not interacted with any serious Protestant apologetics works, either. Or, if he has, he gives no evidence of it.
Sola scriptura says the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. It does not deny the existence of "general revelation" in nature (hence the error of saying the "sole source of revelation"). It is interesting to note, however, that Mr. Ray, in his zeal for the Roman position, ends up taking the more conservative, traditional partim-partim viewpoint of tradition and revelation, for while many modern Roman Catholic theologians are moving toward abandoning the "two-source" view of revelation, Mr. Ray states his adherence to it plainly a number of times in his article (we shall note them in passing). Mr. Ray is a former Baptist. Hence, he might want to be familiar with what the Baptists in 1689 placed in their Confession of Faith:
The sufficiency of Scripture is clearly asserted, but it is a sufficiency carefully defined. No one claims the Bible is an omnipedia of all knowledge. Nor does anyone claim the Bible can tell you, specifically, what color fabric to place upon the pews of your new church building. But all things that are "necessary" for God's "own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture." How like the words of Augustine:
Note well the words of Augustine: he says that the Scriptures fix "the rule for our doctrine." The Latin of the passage reads, "Scriptura nostræ doctrinæ regulam figit." Protestants say the Scriptures are the sole infallible regula fidei, the rule of faith. It seems Augustine believed the same.
Now before too many of our Roman Catholic readers blow a gasket, I well know that Augustine asserted the Church has a role in preserving the truth, and especially when Augustine had to struggle against Donatism (and the influence of Cyprian), he appealed to "tradition." Yet, he did not appeal to tradition as Rome now teaches it, and did not deny sola scriptura so as to present a doctrine of sola ecclesia. Note his own words:
The issue is not, and never has been, the validity of "tradition" as a subordinate authority. I above cited from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. It is a "subordinate standard," a "tradition" if you wish, that gives expression to certain aspects of divine truth. But it is not revelational, nor is it infallible. It is subordinate to Scripture, and liable to correction on the basis thereof. The Lord Jesus gave us the example in Matthew 15: we are to subordinate all traditions, even those that men claim are "divine" in origin, to the ultimate authority of Scripture. In this we agree with Basil of Caesarea:
And likewise with Cyril of Jerusalem:
I note in passing that such citations, likewise, refute Mr. Ray's assertion that Luther was rejecting the "teachings of the Fathers of the first centuries." In reality, it is Mr. Ray who has abandoned them in his embracing of doctrines such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception.
The main element of Mr. Ray's misrepresentation of sola scriptura can be seen in just this: the doctrine speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? One will search high and low for any reference in any standard Protestant confession of faith that says, "There has never been a time when God's Word was proclaimed and transmitted orally." You will never find anyone saying, "During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational." Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is "sufficient." It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, "See, sola scriptura doesn't work there!" Of course it doesn't. Who said it did?
But immediately the Roman Catholic apologist makes a fatal logical error: "Well, if there was a time when God's Word was orally transmitted, why can't it be today?" Such assumes the very thing Rome won't ever dare step out and prove: that her self-proclaimed "traditions" are in fact, inspired revelation that has existed since the days of the Apostles. Indeed, many Roman apologists deny that tradition is in fact qeo,pneustoj: God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Some of "Tradition" may be inspired (i.e., Scripture), but many are uncomfortable having to defend the idea that "oral tradition" is in fact revelation and is inspired. If the Roman apologist wishes to say, "Well, there was a time when God-breathed revelation was orally transmitted prior to the enscripturization of that revelation," that's fine. But to go beyond this statement to, "And, that situation continues today, so that our traditions are equal with Scripture in authority" is to leap out of the realm of both scriptural teaching and historical reality. It is a self-evident fact that a doctrine such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary has no historical connection to the Apostles themselves. To make it an inspired "tradition" is to say revelation is still being given (a position even Rome denies).
Sola scriptura speaks to the Church as she exists in her normative state. Times of revelation are not normative. They are now passed. So how does the Church have sure access to the truths of God today? By reference to nebulous, a-historical traditions, or to the sure and unchanging Word of God in the Scriptures? Sola scriptura says the Church always has an ultimate authority to which to turn: and the Church isn't that ultimate authority! The Church is in need of revelation from Her Lord, and that she finds in Scripture, not in "traditions" that are uncertain. [For more information on this topic, see The Roman Catholic Controversy, pp. 55-101.]
The Bereans and sola scriptura
Mr. Ray's article has a text block that reads as follows:
The article attempts to undermine the use of Acts 17:11 as a "proof-text" for sola scriptura by arguing that in point of fact the Bereans did not operate on a basis consistent with Protestant claims regarding the supremacy of Scripture. Mr. Ray states that the Catholic response to this passage has often been "mediocre." But, he claims, "Not only can the text be explained easily by Catholics, but it is actually a strong argument against sola scriptura and a convincing defense of the teaching of the Catholic Church." Such is a pretty tall claim! Does Mr. Ray succeed in his task? Let's start by looking at the passage in question.
One of the key phrases is "these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica," so Ray goes back and looks at what had happened there:
Now, before we look at Mr. Ray's ingenious argument, let's examine the passage and see what Luke has to tell us. We see that Paul, as was his custom, went into the synagogue as the first missions "starting point" upon arriving in Thessalonica. This was his custom everywhere he went, for he would find there a place where the Scriptures were known and hence a common ground could be established. For three weeks he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, using the Old Testament (as we call it today) to demonstrate the truth about the Messiah. Paul met with some success, for some Jews, as well as "God-fearing Greeks" and a number of the leading women believed the message. The "God-fearing Greeks" refers to those who, while not completing the proselytization process, attended the synagogue and listened to the reading of the Scriptures. Nothing is said about the character of the dialogues outside of Paul's reliance upon the Scriptures as his source of teaching. We are told, however, that as soon as people began to follow Paul's teachings, the Jews became jealous. We are not told that they were able to refute Paul, or anything else. Instead, jealousy was their motive. While they had not been able to get the God-fearers to convert, Paul succeeded in convincing them of the truths of the gospel and eliciting from them their belief and obedience.
What follows is not overly relevant to our inquiry here, aside from the fact that an uproar ensues, and Paul and Silas are forced out of town, leading them to Berea. In contrast with the jealous Jews who had stirred up trouble, Luke tells us that those in Berea were more "noble-minded." Rather than stirring up trouble, they eagerly listened to the message of Paul and Silas. At this point, however, we need to look closely at the text. The term "noble minded" is euvgene,steroi, which is the adjectival comparative form. Luke is making a contrast between the attitude of the Thessalonians and that of the Bereans. As F.F. Bruce points out in his commentary on Acts, the term originally referred to nobility, but eventually came to mean "open minded." How did they show their open-mindedness? They did so by eagerly receiving the message of the Apostles, daily examining the Scriptures to see if what they were receiving was in accordance with God's truth. The Greek text indicates that these were not two different activities: the receiving of the message and the searching of the Scriptures on a daily basis are one action in Luke's description. The "daily examining the Scriptures" is a description of the means by which the Bereans received the word of the Apostles. A.T. Robertson points out that the term "searching" as in "searching the Scriptures" (avnakri,nontej) means "to sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in legal precesses as in Ac 4:9; 12:19, etc.).
Now, the reason this passage is relevant is quite clear: here you have individuals comparing the Apostolic message against the Scriptures. What is the ultimate source of authority for the Bereans? Plainly, it is the Scripture. And just as obviously, the Apostles have no problem at all with this procedure. Hence the necessity of addressing this passage on the part of Mr. Ray.
Getting Around Acts 17:11
So how does Mr. Ray get around this passage? He begins by asserting that the Bereans actually condemn the position of sola scriptura! How? Let's see. He begins by stating, upon citing Acts 17:1-9, " The Thessalonians rejected Paul and his message, and, after denouncing him, they became jealous that others believed." Yet, where does the text say this? The text says nothing about rejecting Paul's message. Luke says, "But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar." The motivation of the Jew's action is plainly jealousy, nothing more. Of course they did not embrace the message: if they had, they would not have been jealous! Why make a point of this? Note Mr. Ray's own words:
Where does Luke speak of their comparing Paul's message with the Old Testament and concluding he was wrong? Luke gives only one reason for their rejection: jealousy. This was nothing new. This is not the first time Paul encountered the jealousy of the Jews. I certainly don't get the idea that Paul was defeated in public debate on the issue of the witness of the Old Testament to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Why is Mr. Ray intent upon reading into the action of the Thessalonians this idea of comparing the message of Paul to the Scriptures and finding it wanting? Because it is his position that the Thessalonians were actually believers in sola scriptura, while the Bereans were not! How does he come to this tremendously surprising conclusion? First, he attempts to draw a distinction between the Thessalonians and the Bereans as to their make-up:
Everyone realizes that the Bereans were not Christians when Paul and Silas first arrived. Then again, neither were the Thessalonians. In fact, the make-up of the two communities was the same: Hellenistic Jews, with God-fearers also in the congregation in the synagogue. There is no meaningful difference in the ethnic make up of the synagogue in Thessalonica and the one in Berea. If there was no doctrine of sola scriptura in Berea, nor was there one in Thessalonica. He must be consistent in using the same standards for both, for he certainly makes no attempt at substantiating his implicit assertion that there was some difference between the two groups.
Now, Mr. Ray goes on to expand upon his claim about the Jews:
Mr. Ray's understanding of Matthew 23 goes far beyond anything that particular passage can substantiate. The seat of Moses was simply the seat upon which a person sat to read the Scriptures in the synagogue. But he is right that the Jews had a great body of tradition: and the Lord Jesus taught us to subjugate those traditions to the Scriptures in Matthew 15:1-9, including those that the Jews themselves claimed were "divine" in origin. Which is exactly why the Bereans are commended: they are doing what they should have done when faced with a new message. They are testing that message for consistency against the ultimate rule of faith for God's people: the Scriptures. At this point, however, Mr. Ray utterly departs from the text and says:
One's breath is taken away by the tremendous leap taken here. Where does Luke say a word about the Thessalonian Jews carefully examining Paul's teaching on the basis of sola scriptura and, as a result, rejecting it? Of course, he says nothing of the sort. Instead, he says that Paul operated on the basis of the supremacy of Scripture in preaching to the Thessalonians, and as a result, he was successful in convincing some of the truthfulness of his message. But others, acting out of jealousy, started a riot. Nothing is said at all about their taking three weeks to deliberate and come to some kind of scriptural conclusion! This is purely wishful thinking on Mr. Ray's part. Sadly, he then attempts to provide some kind of basis for this tremendous leap by citing Kistemaker's work on Acts. Yet, if one reads the source cited, one finds the exact opposite of Ray's own assertions:
There is certainly nothing supportive of Mr. Ray's thesis in these words from Kistemaker. In fact, just the opposite is true. Kistemaker is not even here speaking specifically of the Thessalonian Jews, but of the Jews Paul encountered in his ministry in general. The reason Mr. Ray does not provide a reference to a commentary speaking of the Thessalonians coming to a reasoned, considered conclusion on the basis of an examination of the Scripture is simply this: the text doesn't even hint at such an idea. Yet, despite this, Mr. Ray says,
It is simply amazing that a person can go from the jealousy of the Jews to the idea that they were crypto-Protestants practicing sola scriptura and therefore missing the truth of Paul's message! We are given no references to scholarly sources here, either, for the same reason: such a conclusion has no connection with the text.
But remember that Mr. Ray says the Bereans actually denied sola scriptura. How is this? Let's listen:
Does a "perusal" of grammars and commentaries give us such an indication? Let's start with one that Mr. Ray has already cited, that being the commentary of Kistemaker:
How about Richard Longenecker in the Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), p. 471?
And we note the words of Ivor Powell in The Amazing Acts (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1987), pp. 295-296:
And what of the very commentary Mr. Ray cites, that of I. Howard Marshall? On page 280 we read:
And A.T. Robertson commented:
Why do all these commentators say the same thing? Because the text is plain beyond dispute, and Mr. Ray is simply desperate to avoid the plain meaning of the text. This error is then compounded by his errant belief that sola scriptura is somehow contradicted by the acceptance of "new revelation," as if sola scriptura is meant to be applied during times of revelation rather than being a normative rule for the Church. He writes,
In reality, the Bereans accepted the message of Christ because it was consistent with the Old Testament revelation. Even introducing "canon" issues here is to continue the tremendous misuse of this passage already begun in attempting to turn the Thessalonians into crypto-Protestants and the Bereans into crypto-Catholics. And we note in passing (as Wayne Grudem notes in his Systematic Theology, pp. 84-85) that 2 Peter 3:16 refers to writings, not to vague and undefinable "oral traditions."
Mr. Ray would do well to deal with the criticism of Jamnia found in Beckwith's fine work, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1985). But in any case, we have here yet another straw-man, an argument based upon either misrepresentation or ignorance of the issues at hand. The Thessalonians were not noble minded because they rejected the message preached out of jealousy. The Bereans were noble minded because they listened to the message and tested it by Scripture. Any attempt to read into the passage some concept of "extra-biblical oral tradition" or to read out of the passage the plain supremacy of Scripture, is yet another example of how Roman Catholic apologists are at a real loss when it comes to engaging in serious exegesis of the Scriptures.
But in the midst of this misrepresentation, Mr. Ray stumbles upon a truth without, seemingly, knowing it. Sensing that he has done nothing to escape the simple fact that the Bereans tested the claimed apostolic message for consistency by Scripture and without an infallible magisterium, he attempts to explain their action:
Note the phrase, "to confirm additional revelation." Here you have individuals going directly to Scripture and testing a message for consistency. Yet, when I do the very same thing with Roman theology, I'm told I'm engaging in "private interpretation" and that I am endangering my soul. For all his attempts, Mr. Ray has utterly failed to overthrow the plain teaching of the passage: the Bereans did not seek for some "oral tradition" nor an "infallible magisterium." They allowed the Scriptures to function just as the Baptist Confession of Faith says they should. Mr. Ray won't admit it, but one thing is plain as day: the Bereans did not believe in sola ecclesia as he does: they did not look for an infallible Church with an infallible magisterium to tell them what was, and what was not, Scripture and truth. [Indeed, we note with some level of irony that from the Roman Catholic position, an infallible definition of the canon was still 1500 years in the future!]
Finally, Mr. Ray follows the old line of misusing 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
Paul nowhere speaks of "apostolic Tradition" in his writings. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul speaks of his preaching the gospel to the Thessalonians orally and by letter, nothing more. It is a tremendous stretch to assert that we have here a basis for some nebulous, ever-changing "oral tradition" that eventually gives the basis for such doctrines as papal infallibility and the Bodily Assumption of Mary.
In Conclusion
After a decade of trying, I still await a serious interaction in writing from a Roman Catholic apologist on the doctrine of sola scriptura that does not engage in the most egregious forms of misrepresentation and argument-begging. After a while, one begins to wonder why it is that the doctrine cannot be discussed openly and honestly. Why do we continuously have to point out basic error after basic error as we have above? If Rome's claims are so strong and so overwhelming (certainly a claim Rome's defenders make all the time), why the constant misrepresentation? If we had to continuously misrepresent Rome's doctrines, would we not, by so doing, be demonstrating that we do not have solid answers to her claims?
I do hope that Mr. Ray has misrepresented his former faith purely out of ignorance, not out of malice. And if that is the case, and I truly hope it is, I hope he will reconsider his pledge of allegiance to an authoritarian system that has led him so far from the truths of the Scriptures. |
GRPL Ping
ping for later reading — some interesting quotes from early Christians in there — Augustine, Cyril, Basil.
"Why do we continuously have to point out basic error after basic error as we have above?"
Why don't more Protestants take the time to understand the position they claim? A long article but educational; I hope the many Protestants that want to engage RCCs in debate on this forum will take the time to read it - in hope they will understand what they are debating. I am printing it out right now.
Thanks for a very interesting read.
The quotes seem pretty strong in defense of scriptural authority as above non-scriptural.
As the author points out, both sides say such things all the time. The author does proceed to go into great detail to support his claim and show where Mr. Ray is in fact in error.
Also it's interesting that an average protestant would be prone to not understand such things...
Yeah, while every Roman Catholic I know can explain the difference between dulia and hyperdulia and can give a precise explanation of the Immaculate Conception. </sarcasm>
I’m glad you don’t have my e-mail address! I get so much SPAM already.
awww and here i thought protestants were ready to get on board with everything St Basil said.
that said protestants barely sit through a 1 hour service, where as the liturgy of St Basil the great is 3-3.5 hours standing the whole time...
If your attitude is the reflection of your teaching, your church is failing you! Perhaps 3.5 hours is not long enough.
since when does posting relevant works of a theologian mentioned in the article and discussion constitute spam?
within that work St Basil references veneration of Mary and Icons, as well as the perpetual virginity of mary.
All of which would contradict the original poster’s asertions about St Basil’s beleifs.
Enough.
By that logic I can simply point to any individual who left the Orthodox Church and/or who erroneously represents its beliefs as being proof that the Orthodox Church is in error.
The author presented a very sound case against Mr. Ray's polemical article. Do you have anything to offer against the author's actual points, are you you simply going to continue chucking batteries from the sidelines and spamming threads with ridiculously long posts?
Why do so many Catholics (including the ones here on FR) insist on attacking "fundamentalism?" Don't they know what that sounds like they are doing?
Catholics could attack "Protestantism," but for some reason they never do so, apparently because they're such good buddies with crypto-atheist liberal Protestants. And liberal Protestants no more accept the Catholic magisterium than Fundamentalist Protestants do. In fact, sola scriptura is a doctrine of Protestantism, not merely Fundamentalist Protestantism. Yet Catholics don't attack "Protestantism." They attack "Fundamentalism."
What Catholics seem to be absolutely ignorant of is that to Fundametalists themselves the term "fundamentalism" simply means "orthodoxy" (small-"o") or "conservatism." When Catholics exempt Protestantism per se from criticism and instead attack "fundamentalism" it sounds to Fundamentalists themselves like an attack on conservative, small-"o" orthodoxy itself. Why is this so hard to fathom?
If you ask the man in the street what a "fundamentalist" is he won't say "someone who rejects the Catholic magisterium" or "someone who believes in sola scriptura. He'll say "someone who actually believes that silly crap." And I must tell everyone on this forum that anytime I hear or read someone attacking "fundamenatlism" that is exactly how I interpret it. And unfortunately, much of the time that is exactly how it is intended (consider that most of the Catholic apologetic organizations, publications, and individuals are as anti-creationist as they are anti-sola scriptura).
I would also like to comment on the observation that a Protestant can't defend his faith or criticize Catholicism without being labeled "anti-Catholic" (not in a theological but in an ethnic bigotry sense). This is because in the United States Catholicism is an historically "oppressed" urban immigrant minority religion. Catholics literally get to relive the Middle Ages with themselves cast as the Jews and Fundamentalist Protestants playing the role of bigoted Catholic peasant.
I truly wish Catholics (at least the so-called "conservative") ones would stip attacking "fundamentalism" (which simply connotes "orthodoxy," "tradition," or "conservatism" to most people who so designate themselves) and attack "Protestantism" instead. Unfortunately, since most American Catholics are committed to the Bible being full of mistakes and errors, "fundamentalism" is an accurate description of their position.
I take that as an admission that you've never gone to a southern Black church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.