I was just reading the thread that Ben Glaser started on Jason Stellman (lots of good things there). I have seen a lot of blog posts about Jason Stellman's conversion to Rome (most of them not so good). There is a general feeling of betrayal. I wonder how much weeping has been done, however? Shouldn't our reaction to such news be one of weeping and sorrow? Recent comments of Jason's on my blog have been a bit defensive, because people are blasting him to smithereens. I keep wanting to tell these people: do you attract flies with honey or vinegar? Debating Romanists, I admit, is a trying experience. For one thing, they have a very different paradigm than we do. All too often, we don't address the paradigmatic differences, but only the "obvious" differences. Secondly, Romanists have an easy answer for everything. Since tradition has so much weight, you can thrust your knife in at one point, and the cheese of tradition will always squelch in around the knife point and close up the gap, leaving you wondering whether, in order to make one point, you have to make all the points. We should stick to the paradigmatic points: Scripture/authority, and justification. Everything else stems from one or the other of these two cardinal points. I'm trying to bone up on my reading in this area (primarily because of Jason, which shook me up big-time, though not in a way that should make anyone nervous! It just showed me that none of us are immune).