neal4christ
New Member
Never claimed it did.First "spirit" never means symbolically in the Bible.
In Christ,
Neal
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Never claimed it did.First "spirit" never means symbolically in the Bible.
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.Svendsen did no such thing. I read the man's book. Why would he waste his time trying to refute RC beliefs that RCers don't actually hold? He wouldn't.
Additionally, your criticisms of Svendsen's book are a bit off mark. It seems to me that what he does, mainly, is to critique the *arguments of Roman Catholic apologists*.
His aim was not to just out- and- out discuss Church history, Roman theology, etc. He may of course touch on those subjects, but that isn't the big thrust of the book.
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.That is WHY I did not tell folks to go get a copy of James R. White's *book* on Catholicism and on Mary, which I could've easily done (I've read both, BTW, and both are pretty good).
Just out of curiousity I may go and read that.I gave a link to White's RC page since he has some articles regarding the types of arguments one hears from a Roman Church apologist, and where such arguments are flawed.
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.I don't think Protestants or Baptists would be suckered into converting to RCism if it wasn't for the new apologetics used by the Roman Church over the past few decades.
Sure. That's why intellectual geniuses like Chesterton and Newman converted, right?Let's face it, before the new RC apologetics, Prots and Baptists knew the doctrines of the RCC and knew to stay away from it.
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.But now you have the apologists all smooth and slick with crafty arguments which sounds good and convincing to some Prots/Baptists.
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.A change in p.r. and apologetics can fool and sucker some of the people, people who before would've not been taken in.