tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2831197136984997938..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Elevator out of orderRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60312905812500995552018-01-26T14:07:58.541-05:002018-01-26T14:07:58.541-05:00Yes, from our Protestant perspective (I agree with...Yes, from our Protestant perspective (I agree with what you say); but how do we objectively define the difference between a Protestant sound Biblical doctrinal development (Trinity, Sola Scriptura, Penal Substitutionary atonement, Sola Fide & imputed righteousness) vs. Newman's improper theory? Do you think Newman recognized that he was making a circular argument that gave the Pope to do anything he wanted to into the future?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47215772894278558362018-01-25T22:54:28.789-05:002018-01-25T22:54:28.789-05:00In reality, the criterion is circular because legi...In reality, the criterion is circular because legitimate development is whatever the current pope says. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54594383221979018332018-01-25T13:17:22.587-05:002018-01-25T13:17:22.587-05:00What are the definitions of apostolic succession?
...What are the definitions of apostolic succession?<br />1. RC= both office / person of bishops & doctrine from 2 nd century onward being infallibly passed on and protected in unbroken chain. ?<br />2. Protestant = seeking to guard and pass down doctrine, but church leaders fallible. ?<br /><br />What is the difference between proper doctrinal development ( Trinity, sola scriptura, penal susbstitutionary atonement, sola Fide & imputed righteousness, etc. ) vs. Newman’s improper theory ?<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11660905506778737412018-01-24T08:37:22.605-05:002018-01-24T08:37:22.605-05:00Bryan never allows for the possibility that a conv...Bryan never allows for the possibility that a convert is sometimes justified in reexamining his conversion. Yet converts have more experience after they convert, and therefore have additional information they didn't have during the preliminary investigation. In that respect, a convert is sometimes in a better position to reconsider his conversion than an inquirer. A convert can make a more informed evaluation by virtue of his postconversion experience. This applies to conversion in general, where converts sometimes have second thoughts after they become better acquainted with the movement/institution/tradition they converted to. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64301593831039675832018-01-24T01:55:18.548-05:002018-01-24T01:55:18.548-05:00>But the epistemic switchover is illusory.
Yes...>But the epistemic switchover is illusory.<br /><br />Yes! That's exactly what I was trying to get at in my comments (given under my real name) here. A very frustrating interaction:<br /><br />http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/#comment-78610Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19450269172457557842018-01-23T11:59:53.377-05:002018-01-23T11:59:53.377-05:00Thanks Steve. That resonates with me. I read Rivin...Thanks Steve. That resonates with me. I read Rivington and Fortesque, as perplexed as ever that men like Bryan Cross just roll over and claim authority.Coreysanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088111514772374098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22382141472143605722018-01-23T11:20:36.218-05:002018-01-23T11:20:36.218-05:00A Catholic convert directed me to the linked piece...A Catholic convert directed me to the linked piece one time, after I used the tu quoque objection that Catholic converts must also use their private judgment to determine that Rome is the One True Church.<br /><br />I concluded, after skimming it, that Bryan Cross' answer could be summed up as "And then a miracle happens, and the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church." In other words, they have no real answer other than naked assertion of the Catholic Church...the very thing in dispute. But in making that assertion, they are relying on their private judgment even still...Ben Carmackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689868508463357958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14006130477057809012018-01-22T12:59:10.065-05:002018-01-22T12:59:10.065-05:00In my experience, most lay Catholics don't rea...In my experience, most lay Catholics don't read scholarly books by modern Catholic Bible commentators and church historians. Mainstream Catholic scholarship concedes that the traditional narrative about the papacy is anachronistic. Indeed, John Henry Newman gave up on trying to derive 19C Roman Catholicism from the church fathers, so he invented the theory of development. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87182403306555122722018-01-22T11:54:50.434-05:002018-01-22T11:54:50.434-05:00Steve, when I have more time I will read through t...Steve, when I have more time I will read through the entirety of this post. I expect John Bugay will also take time to jump in as well. For starters, it amazes me that you have the patience to mine through Bryan Cross's presuppositions. May the Lord continue to be your peace.<br /><br />I really became concerned with his statement concerning succession: "...he finds it to have divine authority by a succession from the Apostles." Since he has chosen to use the plural form of "Apostles" my current understanding is that Romanism selected only *one* apostle, not all. They have disregarded Paul's devotion to other churches, and indeed every other apostle as well. I imagine Rome would make the claim that all apostles were subject to Peter willingly, a thought absent in all of Holy Writ, and in fact the other apostles give no evidence of subjection to Peter. So at that point Rome has to punt: I hear them say in the face of objection, "You can't possibly know what we know about history and Scripture." I thought the Holy Spirit rules over interpretation, not the Roman See.<br /><br />Am I missing anything here in my thinking? Or have something wrong? I'd love your input cuz I want to have a firm grasp on this (I have Catholic relatives).Coreysanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088111514772374098noreply@blogger.com