Since I've read all your references over the years, especially as required reading for some of my classes, you have only selected certain references that prove your a priori conclusion. I really wish that you wouldn't do that, it's most misleading. I could go through those same sources and take certain references out of context and prove just the opposite. Church history is not nearly as clear and simple as you wish to make it. First, I suggest that you start by defining the term “catholic.” There are at least four definitions to that term that I know. Secondly, you have to determine who or what determines who or what is catholic and who or what is not. Until those two decisions are made, it is useless to discuss catholicity.
posted on 07/28/2009 11:44:16 PM PDT
Dave Armstrong is the author of the post, not me. FYI, since in your response, you seem to be directing your criticism at me as the author.
Armstong's bio and resume can be found here
. He was raised Methodist, and converted to Catholicism in 1991.
If you disagree with his points, and have these books available, it would be interesting to see any evidence to the contrary of Armstrong's claims.
posted on 07/28/2009 11:53:50 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson