Roman Catholic Apologists

Never claimed it did.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Ah, well, there's the rub. One man's apologia is another man's foolishness. We see that on this board even between Baptists. Even between Protestants of varying sorts. The archives here are filled with arguments between non-Catholics who criticize the way each other comes to a conclusion.

Let me give you an example. When I began to study Catholic theology, one area of severe problem for me was the honor and veneration given to the BVM. It seems to bother most Protestants. But as I studied, in the context of God's covenantal family, I came to understand that Jesus, Who is called in scripture the Last Adam (1 Corin 15:45), is the restoration of the covenantal headship over the human race. As a man, He takes Adam's place, and thus God's salvation plan not only redeems individuals, but the whole program of God which was lost in the Garden by the Fall.

Now -- no Protestant would argue with Jesus being the Last Adam because it is so clearly stated in Scripture. But here is where the problem starts. For me, I kept asking -- "Well, what does that mean in the bigger picture?" Protestants just leave it alone. Yes, He is the Last Adam. End of story.

But not for me.

If Jesus is in the flesh as was Adam, and if Jesus is the Last Adam, and if as the Last Adam all of the Garden Family is restored in Him, then (I asks myself) WHERE is His Eve? For the Garden Family to be fully restored, there must be a New Eve to Jesus Last Adam.

Voila!! The Blessed Virgin Mary.

Now guys like Svendson (as well as not a few Protestants on this board) howl in rage when such apologia is done, calling it "isogesis" and a whole bunch of other uncomplimentary names. Yet what is unsound about asking such questions -- the fact that it comes up with a distinctly Catholic answer?

All apologia is based on certain presuppositions too. That is why Calvinists can see predestination in the Bible where non calvinists cannot.

Mr. White is a Reformed Baptist, and as such, has NO understanding of the covenant. If one does not understand the covenant properly, one cannot exegete properly. Remember, our exegesis is colored and shaped by our foundational understanding of the Bible.

Just out of curiousity I may go and read that.

Obviously you have not read anything by Scott Hahn regarding his conversion. He was not "suckered" by Catholic apologia. He was a very thoroughgoing Presbyterian Calvinist who was just studying and studying the Bible, and the more he studied, the deeper and closer to Catholicism he got. He even called his good friend and seminary buddy, Gerry Matatics, and begged him to destroy his arguments. But his arguments were so good that Matatics actually entered the Church before Hahn. If you build upon the right foundation, you cannot help but convert to the Faith.

Sure. That's why intellectual geniuses like Chesterton and Newman converted, right?

There is nothing either smooth or "slick" about what I have to say. I have read the Bible and find that it supports the Catholic Faith which was the universal faith of both the Latin western Church and the Eastern Greek Church for 1500 years. There is not a hint of Protestantism or Anabaptistry to be found in Church history other than in the gatherings of heretics who had VERY VERY questionable teachings regarding both Christ and moral practice.

A change in pr? C'mon. Look at the current condition of the Church!!! WHO in their right mind would be interested in such an organization? To the outsider, it looks like a hall filled with pervert leaders, wacko bishops, and assorted malcontents who cannot even follow the leading of the Church in moral teaching, such as the Kennedys, et al.

THIS is PR?

What are YOU -- NUTS??!!

Remind me not to hire you to advertize my business when I start it!!

Brother Ed