Posted on 05/04/2009 11:44:49 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Both designed to stifle debate.
Some things ARE comparable to Nazism and fascism more generally. Try making the comparison now and some idiot will pipe up “Godwin’s law, you loose *smirk*.”
Irving’s law only serves to protect those who genuinely do read hate tracts and learn from them and bring their points into otherwise intelligent debate.
“Is that too much to demand from ourselves as Christians?”
From the holier-than-thou brigades here, I’d say “yes.”
I've seen, up close and personal, that mankind is not intrinsically good. I've had dinner with a mass murderer and I've stood up to my waist in piles of the dead.
I do not believe there is any Scriptural justification for the position that man is basically good. There is quite a bit of Scriptural justification for the opposite position, that man is, by nature, evil. Of course, you'd expect a Calvinist who believes in total depravity (or, as R.C. Sproul calls it, radical corruption) to hold that position. :)
LOL... Ya might be on to something, my FRiend.
The very essence of the Bible is about
Creation, Fall, Redemption, Re-Creation,
with man being intrinsically wicked since the Fall.
I’ve had “Christians” insist that my “interpretation” wasn’t right. However, they mostly just asserted that they “didn’t like that interpretation”. I guess, if you don’t like the main and plain message of the scripture, you have to marginalize it or just call it allegory.
I have yet to have anyone rise to my challenge to come up with scripture justifying that viewpoint
when they assert that man is basically good .
Hmmm...interesting.
The writer makes a list of arguments that he can’t refute effectively.
Note the humungous list.
Then he says it is not fair to use them. Then a call for end of debate and compliance to the list
Seems like an Olberfuhrer msnbc sort of strategy.
I’d make up my own list on the Protestant side, but I don’t want to insult people’s intelligence.
Yeesh.
Bottom line, if man wasn’t intrinsically evil, why would we need a Savior? At most, we’d need a guidance counselor...and I don’t recall Mrs. Jenkins from 10th grade getting nailed to a cross to point me on the right path.
Actually, that’s one of the tenets of the “man is basically good” crowd - “there are many ways to God, not just Jesus”.
I seriously don’t see how you can justify calling yourself a Christian, saved by His sacrifice on the cross, then saying it wasn’t necessary.
Genesis 1:27 -- "And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them."
Philosophically, the Catholic view is that all things are good insofar as they are. Being itself flows only from God, Whose very nature it is to be (unlike creatures). Evil doesn't have that kind of primary existence -- it is always a lack or deficiency or perversion of Good.
Liberalism is entirely different. First off, if liberals believed people were basically good, they wouldn't be so enthusiastic about abortion. Historically, the Left believes in the "perfectibility of man" (in a radically different sense from being made "perfect" in Christ, of course!). Its "perfectibility" consists of man as a species, forced into compliance with its vision by re-education, often eugenics, and slaughter if necessary or politically expedient.
Oprah, I think, doesn't really hold a strict and thought-out philosphical position; she strikes me as a sentimentalist. I think I saw her show once and I've seen various things about her in the news. She seems to be good-hearted and well-intentioned, if appallingly naive.
Note to self: No rule that says you can’t call folks heretics who espouse heresy.
I am all for debate. However, we are brothers in the faith, and Bad Guys loom. Joining together for the Good Fight is imperative.
Picture a walled Medieval city. I want to be behind the walls with others/ with weapons, rather than an outlier in a little hut all to my self outside the walls.
Yes, Man is "basically" good. The Lord God looked on everything that He had made, and behold it was very good.
On the other hand, his good nature is, what shall we say, broken? tainted? corrupted? So that "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth," which means, inter alia, that he cannot by himself will a good thing entirely because of it's goodness without some defect in the willing.
I would say that Christian liberalism with its jejune optimism about the perfectibility of man does not appreciate the horror of that brokenness, taint, or corruption.
19. Do not try to allege personal shortcomings of Martin Luther or any other Protestant leader, past or present, as reasons to reject Protestantism. This will not impress the Protestant. It will, in fact, reinforce him. He will remind you that we are all sinners in need of redemption and Luther was no different. He will then lecture ad nauseum how Moses, King David, St Paul and many others were sinners too. If he’s well versed in church history, he may throw your point back at you and cite personal failings of Catholic leaders.
20. Do not trot out the arguement that Protestant churches are “not true churches” just “ecclesial communities” as described in Dominus Deus. To the Protestant, the Church is the Body of Christ, which consists of all persons who know and love the Lord. If you tell him that he is not part of the “true Church” (as the Catholic Church understands it), he will think you are telling him he is not really a Christian. This is a serious insult to a Protestant and the discussion will, at best, end right there. Rather, entertain a discussion with him on the meaning of “Church” and take the opportunity to describe the Catholic Church’s understanding. You will go far in this approach.
21. If you are speaking with a Baptist or Evangelical type, don’t try to compare and contrast the Eucharist with their Lord’s Supper. They are two very different things. Rather, compare it to their altar call. Explain that in Mass, Catholics are invited to come forward to recieve Christ. A Baptist will understand that as it is very similar (though not exactly) to a Baptist/Evangelical altar call.
22. If a Protestant asks you if you are saved, the answer is yes. That question, translated into Catholicese would generally be “Are you living out your baptismal vows?” You could then discuss how you were committed to the Lord when you were born, raised in His fellowship, and as a young person publicly confessed the Faith (Confirmation).
23. Do not cite the number of Protestant denominations as reason to discredit Protestantism. The Protestant values spiritual unity, not institutional unity. He may even argue that institutional unity, with its internal politicking, can actually hinder spiritual unity (eg ECUSA). He will then cite inter-denominational efforts such as InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, the Pro-Life movement, Billy Graham Crusades, Promise Keepers, Habitat for Humanity, Alpha, etc as examples of spiritual unity.
24. You may find that you have more in common with the Protestant than you thought you would.
25. Protestantism is not simply one person, his Bible, and God. You have a Bible (I assume) and the ability to read and comprehend the text (I hope) just like the Protestant. What Protestants do is gather in Bible study groups, Sunday School classes, churches and other types of gatherings to read and study the Scripture together. Their study is guided by either study material written by a trained minister, or by a trained leader. More difficult topics and higher textual studies are lead and supervised by ministers. What you can do is present the Magisterium as a vast library of study, knowledge and teachings gathered from Catholic priests, theologians, scholars, laymen, etc over the last 2000 years. Think of it as the Library of Congress for the Catholic Church, that is available for every single Catholic.
21. If you are speaking with a Baptist or Evangelical type, don’t try to compare and contrast the Eucharist with their Lord’s Supper. They are two very different things. Rather, compare it to their altar call. Explain that in Mass, Catholics are invited to come forward to recieve Christ. A Baptist will understand that as it is very similar (though not exactly) to a Baptist/Evangelical altar call.
Interesting, interesting. I have heard the altar call called an "evangelical sacrament". One that is not found in the practice recorded in the New Testament, nor long after.
He will then cite inter-denominational efforts such as InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, the Pro-Life movement, Billy Graham Crusades, Promise Keepers, Habitat for Humanity, Alpha, etc as examples of spiritual unity.
Which I've heard called "para church la-la land", for it's usual lack of ecclesial oversight.
24. You may find that you have more in common with the Protestant than you thought you would.
Yes and no. It's a chasm I will not jump, but I think I've got way more in common with many of FR's catholic and orthodox, than with the neo-Montanists or the neo-Ebionite judaizers and random rejectors of the Trinity that chime in here.
Protestantism is not simply one person, his Bible, and God.
Can we underline that?
What Protestants do is gather in Bible study groups, Sunday School classes, churches and other types of gatherings to read and study the Scripture together.
Ideally the Word is preached in our churches, which is most important. ", it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.," Unfortunately it is as likely in many places that Protestant preaching is like unto Calvin's description of the papist preaching of his day:
"Nay, what one sermon was there from which old wives might not carry off more whimsies than they could devise at their own fireside in a month? For, as sermons were then usually divided, the first half was devoted to those misty questions of the schools which might astonish the rude populace, while the second contained sweet stories, or not unamusing speculations, by which the hearers might be kept on the alert. Only a few expressions were thrown in from the Word of God, that by their majesty they might procure credit for these frivolities."--John Calvin, Reply to Cardinal Sadoleto
So much of debate of biblical interpretation has to start with blunting the other side's swords -- or, rather, with pointing out how blunt they already are. This works both ways.
Yes, it works both ways, fair and square. Here I would focus on what the respective sides' swords actually are. To me interpretation always comes down to authority. To that regard, either God PERSONALLY leads all believers in interpretation, OR God has entrusted such leadership to the will of the authority of the Latin Church based on Apostolic succession, OR God has done something ....... else. (We all agree that God gives interpretation to His children, we just disagree on how He does that. :) To me that's where the rubber always meets the road. IF God really has made such a transfer then of course the Latin interpretation should be accepted, and if not, etc.
The whole proof-text approach to this conversation is useless. But if somebody says, "Such and such a text says thus and so," (and let us not overlook the lengthy bold-texted citations of Scripture before we jump on Catholic responses to them) it seems to me legitimate to ask "What about this passage over here where it seems to say the opposite?"
It is perfectly legitimate to ask. To answer such questions any Reformer should have either further clarifying scripture giving more "weight" to the view, or at the least a logical argument that can be directly deduced from other scripture. In some sense we paint ourselves into a bit of a corner, but that's OK since we think that EVERYTHING we have is A+ material. :)
LOL!
Place maker
Ping for later
bttt
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.