Here’s a recent commendation about my interests in the Reformation from one of my Roman Catholic admirers. This time, the kudos come from one of the moderators of Patrick Madrid’s “Speak Your Mind” forum:
“Swan’s attempts at scholarship may be posted here, but not his misrepresentation and outright falsehoods about the Catholic Church. He lacks any semblance of charity in his treatment of the original Christian faith, and seems intellectually dishonest on top of that. Yours in Christ, Patti”
Well, thanks Patti. She says that I lack “any semblance of charity,” but if I recall, it was the moderators who banned me from posting because I dared to link to an article from Dr. White. In fact, during my time posting on Madrid’s forums, I spent most of my time interacting with Art Sippo, a “charitable” man who has continually called me names, including “Nazi” on the same forum. I guess the standard for Madrid’s forum is that slander coming from Roman Catholics is not uncharitable. I can’t even link to any of my “uncharitable” posts from the forum, they’ve been deleted as well.
Just what are the misrepresentations and falsehoods Patti is so concerned over? She made her comment in response to the following paragraph that is found on my blog:
There is also the problem of Catholic apologetic double standards. The Catholic apologists assume Trent was following the tradition of the church, and there was no teaching of “faith alone” previous to Luther. In other words, Luther invented “justification by faith alone.” It didn’t exist until Luther. It can’t be verified in church history. It can’t be true. On the other hand, when the same historical standard is applied to certain Catholic dogmas, like Mary’s Bodily Assumption, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc., this same historical standard is swept under the rug and hidden. One has to seriously question why a standard that Catholic apologists hold Protestants to is not likewise applied to their own beliefs. Wade through the corridors of church history and search for the threads of all Catholic dogma. One falls flat of linking many of them back to the early church, or in some instances, even the Bible.”
Patti deleted this paragraph from the forum. It would be very interesting for Patti to actually prove that this paragraph is “intellectually dishonest,” rather than simply deleting it. It seems simple enough. In fact, I realize how time consuming written discussions are, so she doesn’t even need to trace everything I mentioned. I would be happy with one, say for instance, the Bodily Assumption. Go ahead, Patti, trace that one through “Tradition” back to Apostolic teaching. Want an illustration of this?