Partly on lines I had already previously used about such errors. Partly on expectations on Protestants that I find somewhat ridiculously high.
William Lane Craig gets this wrong about the Early Church...(REBUTTAL Pt. 2)
Shameless Popery | 12 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd6ihSEr3Sw
Yes, Jesus holding Himself in His hands on the last supper is about as weird as God the Son, Who "holds the whole world, in his hand" actually steadying the ground He (humanly) stands on, near the centre of the universe.
We get it. Some consider Transsubstantiation and Incarnation weird doctrines! *
Yes, I know, William Lane Craig is like my fable's Mexican visiting Edinburgh.**
You know, he had known the Scottish host through correspondence, but never seen him "in context" and considered seeing him wearing a kilt was seeing a descent to cross dressing and tasting whisky and haggis was a descent to dog food and shameful drunkenness, not because the Mexican was vegetarian or a teetotaller, but because the taste of some burned wood was so inappropriate in alcohol ... and ... you get the point. The Mexican believed, but totally, everything he saw his host do, the host did the first time then and there and so this was the descent into madness of a man who had never worn anything but trousers around his legs, or shorts, never drunk any strong spirit but Cognac or Grappa, never eaten any butchered thing that wasn't muscle meat, and never listened to those weird flutes with distortion to them until the first time the Mexican saw it happen.
This accounts for the attitudes of some Protestants to Catholicism, and partly accounts for some examples that Newman gave in his famous 1845 book (he had obviously been Protestant, and he wrote it while going to convert, explicitly ordered to wait with the instruction to after writing the book).
Wait, are you crediting William Lane Craig with getting his Church history from our own time's Church Historians?
A certain James Wylie wrote "History of Protestantism" covering Early Church to 1688 and the Glorious Revolution. He wrote the book in 1878. In it he credits St. Ambrose with opposing the Real Presence.
That's more like where William Lane Craig gets his Church History from. Always supposing it isn't Trail of Blood.***
OK. You suggest William Lane Craig is supposed to bother about Liturgical Evidence, when he doesn't go to Mass?
Or, given he has only read a small part of Patristics, if even any first hand, that he should forego the bet that this must be a fringe opinion, if it disagrees with his own, even if he has no direct statement about what he guesses must have been the majority opinion?°
Are you expecting Protestants to show intellectual honesty?
[Tried to add:]
As with Catholics who pretend Old Earth Creationism and Heliocentrism were OK by the Ancient Church, such Protestants don't bother to show contrary examples.
William Lane Craig at least gets totally right what the Reformation was about.
Well, I guess, if it's easier for some to be faithful to CSL than to Genesis (how the fall of man happened, there is a bad chapter in The Problem of Pain), its also easier for some to be faithful to the Reformation than to the Early Church.
CSL actually agreed with WLC's assessment on what it was that divided Tyndale from More.
Joe Heschmeyer also has a video about St. Tarcisius:
What Eucharistic Martyrs Prove About the Early Church
Shameless Popery | 15 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3q0m75wtFY
* ...on Paisley's attacks on Consubstantiation/Transubstantiation
** The Mexican in Edinburgh and Church History
*** History Forger James Aitken Wylie
° Hippo is a decent sample of the Church Universal, if we have no dissenting voice from Carthage, Rome, Damascus, Seville, Jerusalem, centuries on centuries. / Moral Unanimity of Church Fathers
No comments:
Post a Comment