What do know of me? Young, old, male, female, where I live, what I do, my background, my training? Hmmm? You don't. Period. So making a comment like this strikes out on several levels, being rash indeed:
“Since, as with almost all Protestants, you probably know little about history,......’
Just what particular work of Thurston is the one you have in mind?
You wrote:
“What do know of me? Young, old, male, female, where I live, what I do, my background, my training? Hmmm? You don’t. Period. So making a comment like this strikes out on several levels, being rash indeed:”
Not rash at all. Your posts over the months have shown that to be the case as is the case with Protestant after Protestant here. As John Henry Newman said, “And this one thing is certain…the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If there ever were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it so… This is shown in the determination…of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [historical Christianity] aside, unless they had despaired of it…
To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
“Just what particular work of Thurston is the one you have in mind?”
The title is: How history is miswritten: a test applied to the work of H.C. Lea at the instance of Dr. Coulton. It’s about 32 pages. Even you could handle that.