Replies

It will not satisfy any Protestant to object to his proof-text that "it can't mean that because then it would contradict this other passage over here." The Protestant will have his own understanding of that other passage over there as well.

Here's why I think this is wrong. I would amend it to "... do not appeal to Jas. 2:24 ... as if it were dispositive or conclusive."

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.

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?"

I certainly think that some of the approaches to the conversation are needlessly or excessively polemical, and the "round and round we go" character of the conversation suffices to show their futility.

BUT, an oversimplified statement of one side of an argument often generates an oversimplified retort. And more than once appeals for nuance and for careful consideration of the problem have been met with accusations of "parsing", as though the very thoughtfulness this guy seems to be advocating were itself suspect.

Indeed, I think this guy has himself fallen into the kind of error he cautions us against. The amount of time it takes to compose or to read a precise and careful, not to say ruminative, presentation of the truth of the matter not only militates against useful conversation but calls down charges of equivocation or obfuscation (to both of which charges I have been subject) and arguments that "It just can't be true if it's that complicated."

I think the apologetic enterprise, as carried out by either side, with the notable exception (most of the time) of Forest Keeper, is spiritually perilous and often intellectually vapid.

So There. Ah HAH!. Gotcha! Nyah nyah. Etc.

Hey MD. Good to see you again, thanks for the ping.

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.

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. :)