Steve “scotju” Dalton Apr 2, 2012 06:51 AM
Derek, eighteen years ago, I was in the same position that Wallace is in now. The chances of Wallace becoming a Catholic are very good. Once you start getting deep into church history, lke I did, your chances of staying an honest Protestant vanish like a puff of smoke. The only way you can remain a Protestant after that happens is to lie to yourself and others, like the boys at Beggars All and Triablogue do. That goes double for an apostate Catholic like John Bugay.
I’m afraid that accusation poses a serious dilemma. Suppose I agree with Dalton’s allegation that I’m a liar? But if a liar says he’s a liar, is his admission a lie? I’m afraid Dalton has put me in a position that makes it difficult for me to express my assent.
Commenter to Dan Wallace:: By the way, according to some of the comments, you’ll soon be Catholic. Were you aware of this change, or are you happy someone else has pointed it out for you? [wink]
ReplyDeleteDan Wallace: Yes, I’m aware of those comments. It’s interesting that this was suggested but not that I might become Orthodox! Yet, the basis for the comment is that at some point I will no longer hold to sola scriptura. That’s about as likely as the Pope becoming Protestant.
And double for me, huh? I love it. These guys should pray hard for me to become a Roman Catholic again. They should "Shout louder!" ... Surely their God will hear them in this. "Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”
I don't know how you doubly lied to yourself and others John, but apparently it earned you special mention.
ReplyDeleteI'm unsure of proper protocol, are congratulations in order?
Clearly John is a very ambidextrous liar. I'm jealous!
ReplyDeleteI'm very pleased that I (and other "apostate Catholics") are able to get under their skin. May our ranks increase!
ReplyDeleteSteve, you are the best teacher!
ReplyDelete+1 from another apostate Catholic. In fact, I became an apostate Catholic partly because I read some "church fathers" and became very interested in church history. And the great thing about being an apostate Catholic is that you can let the fathers speak for themselves without feeling guilty. :)
ReplyDeleteHi Jeff, thanks for commenting. I'd love to hear more about your story if you'd care to share it.
ReplyDeleteHere's another kindly offering of Scott Dalton blessing:
ReplyDeleteSteve "scotju" Dalton said...
As a convert to the faith, I'm amazed at the willful ignorance of this poor man. I used to have the same kind of ignorance, but you know what? Once I started to allow the scriptures and the Church Fathers to speak to me without my biases and prejudices getting in the way, I was able to understand what the Church actually taught. I don't know why Der Schwann is so Anti-Catholic, but I suspect that deep down, he knows the Catholic Faith is the true faith, and he has to keep attacking it to still his conscience. John Bugay, the apostate Catholic, acts like Swan. He's always attacking his former faith. Deep down, I suspect he knows he has turned his back on the true faith, and like Swan, he has to drown his conscience in a pool of hate toward the Church. It's so sad."
Hey James, you gotta love it. Where is that one from?
ReplyDelete"Hey James, you gotta love it. Where is that one from?"
ReplyDeleteSo much for being among the 'separated brethren'.
Hey John,
ReplyDeleteYou want the long version or the longer version? :)
I was a "marginal" Catholic for 27 years. I'm not gonna make myself out to be a Pharisee of Pharisees seeing as how I would much rather have watched pro wrestling on Sunday mornings than go to church, and when I went off to college, I basically stopped going to church altogether.
After college, I started working and got married. Some guys at work confronted me with the gospel near daily. I thought I was saved because I was Catholic, but they were saying things that I had never heard before about what salvation truly is. And an aside - this, my first introduction to "evangelical Christianity", was through my friends at work debating Calvinism/Arminianism - if anyone ever tells you "don't talk about those things in front of non-believers, just say 'but I know this guy who was saved through that conversation.'" :)
Anyway, it wasn't long after God saved my wife and I (at the same time - what a blessing!) that He brought us to a fork in the road - should we remain Catholic or not? We already had reservations, but I wanted to be intellectually honest, so I started looking everywhere for answers.
A HUGE influence in my decision were the debates that James White did with various Catholic apologists on any number of topics. I learned more from those debates about the Catholic church in 1 year than I had in 27 years of being Catholic, and it got me interested in church history. I'd recommend those debates to anybody if they want to hear what Catholics believe from the mouths of Catholic apologists.
So, I read quotes from many "church fathers" that showed that they were nowhere close to modern Rome in their conflicting beliefs about Mary, the church, the apostolic gifts, etc. I read earlier popes who were nowhere close to modern Rome on the issue of papal primacy, Rome being the head of the church, extra ecclesia nulla salus, etc. I read stuff from the various Catholic denominations all claiming that there are no Catholic denominations while at the same time being indistinguishable from Protestant denominationalism (Augustinian vs Jesuit vs Thomist, sede vacantism, etc.)
So, my journey away from Rome began with Christ calling me to salvation at 27 and was solidified over the following year through the voices of history, and the varied mouths of Rome herself.
My journey away from Rome is by conviction, not ignorance. I am fully aware that this places me squarely in the "apostate" camp as I have rejected her teachings out of active assent, not ignorant misunderstanding.
So, their "plan of salvation" includes the Muslims because they deny Jesus, but it excludes me because I deny Rome. Pretty cool how that works, eh? :)
I made those comments about Wallace being on the verge of abandoning SS on very reasonable grounds. He made claims that are simply inconsistent with Sola Scriptura and require the doctrine to be abandoned.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it's not like he's in a position to make anything public, given that his career at Dallas TS would be in jeopardy.
Nick said...
ReplyDelete"I made those comments about Wallace being on the verge of abandoning SS on very reasonable grounds."
In his post he never questioned sola Scriptura.
"He made claims that are simply inconsistent with Sola Scriptura and require the doctrine to be abandoned."
That's just your assertion.
He never questioned Sola Scriptura directly, but he spoke on various issues directly related to SS.
ReplyDeleteHere are some of his claims that fly directly against Sola Scriptura:
(1) "Several evangelical scholars have noted that the problem with Protestant ecclesiology is that there is no Protestant ecclesiology."
(2) "If Dungan is right, then the issue of the authorship of certain books (most notably the seven disputed letters of Paul) is settled. And it’s settled by appeal to an ecclesiological structure that is other than what Protestants embrace."
(3) "the weakest link in an evangelical bibliology is canonicity"
(4) "I’m not sure of the solution, or even if there is one."
“I made those comments about Wallace being on the verge of abandoning SS on very reasonable grounds. He made claims that are simply inconsistent with Sola Scriptura and require the doctrine to be abandoned.”
ReplyDeleteC’mon Nick. Admit you decided to take a little jab at one of the most respected Protestant NT scholars around today and you took it. That’s all. Wallace (at least as far as the man himself is concerned) has no intentions of abandoning sola scriptura, and you know it.
“Of course, it's not like he's in a position to make anything public, given that his career at Dallas TS would be in jeopardy.”
I appreciate that you have a presence on the net representing your opinions on the Catholic/Protestant dialogue. The discussion must, and will, go on until the Lord’s glorious return. Nevertheless, this comment is just insulting. Dr. Wallace has made his own opinion clear. You may think he made comments in his post that indicate he will eventually (already?) abandon sola scripture or Protestantism, or just that the comments he made cannot be squared with either, but he does not.
I cannot help but think of the countless times I have interacted with Christ-mythers, who when confronted with scholar x’s rejection of the Christ myth reply with a wide, delusional grin, “Well, of course x won’t publically endorse the Christ-myth. He/she knows its true, he/she just knows he’ll/she’ll lose his/her job at x University if they endorse the Christ-myth.”
Derek,
ReplyDeleteIt is possible for a person to hold conflicting beliefs at the same time, and it's not uncommon for folks to do so when faced with a tough decision.
All I am saying is that *logically* one cannot affirm Sola Scriptura while affirming some of the things he has said. It is like a person saying "I'm firmly committed to Sola Scriptura but I don't believe Ephesians is inspired Scripture". Anyone can readily see that those two propositions are incompatible. To affirm what this example is affirming is effectively saying Sola Scriptura is false even if that's not publicly stated.
Wallace can answer your charges of inconsistency if he wants to, but I see nothing you have noted that he could not defend as consistent with sola scriptura. It could be said that this is the beauty of being a Protestant. Lots more room for variation/exploration.
ReplyDeleteBut it is still beyond insulting for you to continue insisting that the best explanation is that Wallace has already, secretly, abandoned sola scriptura. Just silly.
Hi Jeff, I just now saw your response. Thanks for commenting, and thanks for sharing. If you don't mind, (or if you don't respond to this), I may take one or two quotes from your comment just as a way of flagging you and thanking you.
ReplyDelete