Between the title of his article and the citations from the Bible, one is left with the impression Armstrong is suggesting that Scripture shows Christ embraced the concept of a schmorgasboard of religions to call and convert His own.
That would be the complete opposite of the lucid conclusions one comes to after reading the Bible.
Dave asks:
Did St. Paul apply “Vatican II-like” approaches to evangelism, by making his message more accessible?
The guy crucified upside down?
Just a little reminder of what St. Paul was teaching when he was kibbitizing with the people he was trying to convert:
Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Did Jesus deal kindly with the Samaritan woman at the well?
The woman He sat down with to persuade her to stop sleeping around?
Drivel alert:
Did St. Peter say that those of any nation could possibly attain acceptance with God and salvation?
Acts 10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: [35] But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
This comes across to me like an attempt to cherry-pick citations from Scripture to make the case that a schmorgasboard of religions are salvific. If so, the editors need to be a little more heavy-handed about errant theology being published at the National Catholic Register.
Yes, God Incarnated as a Jew to convert the Jews but spent His Life and every drop of His Blood leading them away from Judaism and into the New Covenant. The one and only religion belonging to God.
UPDATE
I received notification of the below comment at NCR. I'm betting it's a TTC reader!
The title of this article is "A Biblical Approach to Other Religions", yet
IT PROVIDES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF THE KIND, for the same reason that Matthew
21:31 does not provide "A Biblical Approach to Prostitution". Jesus was
accepting of prostitutes, but they had to leave their prostitution behind;
St. Paul was accepting of idol worshipers, but they likewise had to leave
their idolatry behind. The relationship of Christianity to, for example,
Islam, is the relationship between truth and error; that is an entirely
different thing than the relationship between a baptized Catholic and a
lifelong Muslim. You really, really, really need to keep straight the
difference between ideas and people.
27 comments:
Dave Armstrong has done a huge amount of great work for the Catholic faith over the years, but with respect to him and the work he has done in the past, in his current crotchety and even slightly random seeming incarnation, he cannot be explained.
What the heck is he attempting to say? Is there a point to his column? Does he get paid for this?
His protestant roots are showing up more and more and more in his thinking and in his writing.
I guess I'm really surprised that the editors are not editing for theological content. Maybe they are - maybe it was worse?! The Register is not the only Catholic newspaper that I'd love to see beef up editing for theological content. It actually is pretty decent compared to the mush I sometimes run across in the Pilot.
We've can do better than this. Worthy is the Lamb.
"Can somebody explain this Dave Armstrong article to me?"
Yes, Armstrong is closet supporter of Pope Francis and is attempting, like Pope Francis, to confuse folks in their faith by citing the spirit of Vatican II.
Vatican II was a mass extinction event of Catholic faith. Anytime anyone cites Vatican II as a reason you know immediately that heresy can't be far behind.
Hi Oakes,
Thanks for your kind words regarding my supposedly now long-gone "past" work. Nothing whatever has changed. I'm the same old Dave Armstrong, apologist, who is also ecumenical, because that is what the Church and Bible teach. My views haven't changed one whit since my conversion in 1990 (received into the Church by Servant of God, Fr. John A. Hardon, who enthusiastically endorsed my work and first book, in the Preface). Apologetics and ecumenism aren't mutually exclusive. They only are in the "either/or" Protestant-like mindset of reactionaries and traditionalists such as y'all on this site.
The big boogeyman Vatican II changed nothing in doctrine and dogma whatever, which is why Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal in 1985) stated that Vatican II had precisely the same authority as Trent. If one accepts Trent, they must accept also Vatican II.
I have defended "no salvation outside the Church" all along and ecumenism all along. In fact I did both *yesterday* in dialogue with a Protestant on my Facebook page. Like you (because you guys think like Protestants, as I said), he was under the mistaken impression that Vatican II changed the entire way we view Protestants. I explained to him that the Church has since reiterated "no salvation outside the Church" in CDF documents dated 2000 and 2007, and that "separated brethren" was in use since Pope Leo XIII, and that Trent accepted the validity of Protestant baptism, making them regenerated Christians, and that ecumenism has strong roots in Aquinas and in Augustine's acceptance of schismatic Donatist baptism.
You seem to think I am some kind of flaming liberal, syncretist modernist (a view I absolutely despised and condemned even as a Protestant). It would come as news to my Protestant friend that I have supposedly ceased teaching that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, since I wrote to him:
"We believe that if one truly understands Catholic teaching as true, and rejects it, that they cannot be saved. . . . And we believe that whoever is saved, is saved in some way through the Catholic Church, whether they are aware of it or not."
"The person who converts to Catholicism does so because they have come to believe it to be the one true Church of the Bible, established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. It’s a change of rule of faith and view of authority (from sola Scriptura to Bible-Church-Tradition and infallibility of all three) and acceptance of all that Protestants reject (the saints, Mary, purgatory, the papacy, transubstantiation, infused justification, regenerative baptism, penance, absolution, sacramentalism, moral teachings such as contraception and prohibition of divorce, etc.). All of these factors are exactly the same, either before Vatican II or after it."
[to be continued]
"It’s the fullness of Christian truth, and going from “very good” Christianity to the “best” and most fully true and error-free version of Christianity."
"Your eternal destiny would be on the line if you knew that our teaching was true, and you rejected it."
"[Y]ou have to decide whether to accept or reject the Catholic Church’s claims for itself: the one true Church of the Bible, established by Christ and institutionally continuous since His time. This would require you to change your notion of authority and the rule of faith, and renounce all in Protestantism that is contrary to Catholic teaching."
"Only God knows for sure whether someone truly knows something to be true and is obstinately rejecting it. We believe that if a person does that with regard to Catholic claims, they would be damned."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/08/ecumenism-vs-salvation-outside-church.html
THAT is Dave Armstrong (as of yesterday: there's some "past" for ya): out there evangelizing Protestants and urging them to come into the fullness of the faith, just as I have these past 27 years. And I have about a dozen books directly refuting Protestant claims: two about sola Scriptura, two about Calvin, one refuting TULIP from Scripture, one about Luther, etc. Reports of my transformation into a "crotchety" wishy-washy liberal are greatly exaggerated (like the claims about the still-living Mark Twain). I've been directly responsible for more Protestants coming into the Church (by their report) than all of you here combined. You're too busy bashing and complaining about the Church to do the mundane task of evangelism and apologetics.
Our Lord Jesus commanded you to go out and share the message, and Holy Mother Church urges you to explain and defend her as well. You do neither. You sit and bash the Church and one of her ecumenical councils, and fellow Catholics like me.
[to be continued]
"Anonymous said...
"What the heck is he attempting to say? Is there a point to his column? Does he get paid for this?"
That ecumenism is biblical. That was my point. It's not rocket science. My original title was "Biblical Evidence for Ecumenism." NCR changed it. This was taken from my book, "Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Topics". It has a question-and-answer format; hence, my article. Each question is "answered" by a Bible passage. It's like the game show "Jeopardy": where you get the answer and then come up with a question.
I get paid, like all NCR writers do. Writing and teaching in the Church is labor, and the Bible says the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do you have a problem with that? I also have 2000+ posts on my blog that you can read for absolutely free, if you think I am making too much money in my profession (loud guffaws).
"Anonymous susan said...
"His protestant roots are showing up more and more and more in his thinking and in his writing."
This is sheer nonsense. Nothing whatever has changed.This is simply run-of-the-mill reactionary anti-ecumenism. Anyone who is ecumenical is immediately caricatured and dismissed a a syncretist / relativist. It's simply not true. If anyone is thinking like a Protestant, it's reactionaries (in many ways).
Ecumenism is biblical (as this very article of mine showed), it's patristic (esp. Augustine), and medieval (Aquinas). It has developed more rapidly in recent years, for sure, but it doesn't follow that it was absolutely nonexistent before. The Church emphasizes different things in different times.
I am being apologetical and ecumenical and reaching out to Protestants in terms they can relate to (just as Paul did, e.g., on Mars Hill in Athens: Acts 17). How many Protestants credit YOU with being a major influence in their becoming a Catholic? I can cite hundreds.
It's also sadly common among reactionaries to be "anti-convert." That makes it convenient to lie about a convert still having Protestant elements in his thought. It's beyond bizarre to claim this about me, seeing that I have some thirty books that directly critique Protestantism, including two that dismantle their rule of faith and "pillar": "sola Scriptura.
Yeah, I'm really half-Protestant when I write two entire books that directly respond, point-by-point, to John Calvin's "Institutes" and also a book about Luther.
[to be continued]
"TTC said...
"I guess I'm really surprised that the editors are not editing for theological content. Maybe they are - maybe it was worse?!"
My articles there are never edited; only the titles, occasionally, as with this one.
The article was, of course, 95% consisting of Bible passages. So if you are arguing with it, take it up with God and the inspired Bible writers (or with my interpretation). It's easy to say stupid things about another's stated arguments; quite another to actually make a rational counter-argument.
"Michael Dowd said...
"Armstrong is closet supporter of Pope Francis and is attempting, like Pope Francis, to confuse folks in their faith by citing the spirit of Vatican II.
"Vatican II was a mass extinction event of Catholic faith. Anytime anyone cites Vatican II as a reason you know immediately that heresy can't be far behind."
As a Catholic, I believe the pope is infallible when he meets the conditions for that, and that he is not a perfect man *anymore than St. Peter was).
I don't cite the "spirit of Vatican II": which is a liberal game. I defend th actual council, which is as orthodox and authoritative as Trent, according to Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II. There is no heresy in it. I have uttered no heresy.
But I know that you are lying when you accuse me of deliberately attempting "to confuse folks in their faith." Bearing false witness of another is a mortal sin. That's your (serious) problem right now, whereas I am no heretic.
The Catholic faith *cannot* be rendered extinct. Ever hear of indefectibility?
[to be continued]
Now on to the OP:
"Between the title of his article and the citations from the Bible, one is left with the impression Armstrong is suggesting that Scripture shows Christ embraced the concept of a schmorgasboard of religions to call and convert His own.
"That would be the complete opposite of the lucid conclusions one comes to after reading the Bible."
The correct spelling is "smorgasbord." This has nothing whatever to do with my point. It's simply your knee-jerk antipathy to any ecumenical expression, as a reactionary. So you impose onto my supposed opinions things I never expressed, and never would ever express (or even imagine).
I'm trying to show that Jesus and the apostles were tolerant of those in error, and didn't immediately conclude that they were all hellbound and/or obstinate. There is a subjective element in belief and false beliefs, and there are different levels of culpability and ignorance.
The most striking example of this that I provided, was Jesus' interaction with the Roman centurion. He wasn't even Jewish, and was a pagan, or nonreligious altogether. Yet Jesus said of him, "I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel" (Lk 7:9, RSV).
If Jesus can be that tolerant of, and praise a mere pagan (and Roman centurion), shouldn't we be at least as charitable to Protestants, who are fellow Christians? It doesn't follow that we accept any of their errors. We seek common ground, in order to build a bridge for them to embrace the fullness of Catholicism.
[to be continued]
"Dave asks:
'Did St. Paul apply “Vatican II-like” approaches to evangelism, by making his message more accessible?'
"The guy crucified upside down?"
That would be St. Peter. St. Paul was beheaded (since he was a Roman citizen). You're not impressing me with your Bible knowledge . . .
"Just a little reminder of what St. Paul was teaching when he was kibbitizing with the people he was trying to convert:
"Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
Yes, of course (he taught that in his overall teaching), but nothing I wrote denied any of that. It wasn't my point. MY point was that Paul used ecumenical approaches initially. He sought common ground. Any good, constructive discussion whatever requires that. If we hope to persuade anyone, we first have to establish what common premises we hold. Then we can move on to where we differ, and try to persuade and evangelize.
And so Paul did this approach in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 and on Mars Hill (Acts 17) which wasn't even in my paper. On that occasion, he told the pagan Athenians, "I perceive that in every way you are very religious" (17:22). He cited two pagan poets / philosophers, in attempting to persuade them (Epimenides and Aratus: not named in the text).
Then he preached the gospel to them. The language you cite (1 Corinthians 6) was in his letter to the *Christians* at Corinth (not preached to unbelievers). The direct context was a strong rebuke of them for sin (just as he did with the Galatians, too). So you merely help prove my point. Rebuke of errant believers is not at all the same as evangelism of nonbelievers.
[to be continued]
" [me] 'Did Jesus deal kindly with the Samaritan woman at the well?'
"The woman He sat down with to persuade her to stop sleeping around?"
Of course He rebuked her for sin. But how does it follow that He was, therefore, not personally kind to her? You create yet another false dichotomy: as if being kind somehow precludes a rebuke for sin, or vice versa. Plain dumb! Illogical!
"Drivel alert:
" [me] 'Did St. Peter say that those of any nation could possibly attain acceptance with God and salvation?'
"Acts 10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: [35] But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
"This comes across to me like an attempt to cherry-pick citations from Scripture to make the case that a schmorgasboard of religions are salvific."
I said no such thing. You make out as if I am claiming that all religions are equally salvific. All I said was that they are "possibly" so. Period. After all, you have to explain the TEXT. It does say "accepted with him" and that means *something.* I've only talked about possibilities.
All I have asserted in the paper is what I include in the questions: no more, no less. Your silly extrapolation onto what I wrote, your own foolish ideas only proves that you are being illogical and uncharitable, and that you think in "either/or" dichotomous terms, like Protestants habitually do.
[to be continued]
If so, the editors need to be a little more heavy-handed about errant theology being published at the National Catholic Register.
Yes, God Incarnated as a Jew to convert the Jews but spent His Life and every drop of His Blood leading them away from Judaism and into the New Covenant. The one and only religion belonging to God.
The citation from the combox at NCR simply repeats the same errors: false attribution to me of things I never argued (or ever have believed) and rather stupid false dichotomies: again making out that friendliness and ecumenism are somehow inherently antithetical to Church teachings, and "hard" moral teachings.
They are not, and this hasn't been shown: only asserted sans rational or biblical argument.
Thanks for a great new blog paper that I can now put together! There is nothing like reactionary over-reaction and dumbfounded miscomprehension, for the opportunity to clarify and nail down points ten times better than they were at first.
Your quasi-pharisaical spirit comes through loud and clear! You wanna lie about me and make out that I am a modernist? Very well: then I will tell the truth and proclaim that you re expressing things very much in the way that the Pharisees did in Holy Scripture.
You seem to have skipped my second installment. I was still citing the words I stated to a Protestant yesterday, and then provided the link to the blog paper it was in. Maybe the link wasn't permitted?
Ah, okay. Now I see it is there. Thanks for allowing me to comment and disagree! Maybe next time you will notify me that I am being written about, too, so I have a chance to respond. :-)
o Dave Armstrong:
"But I know that you are lying when you accuse me of deliberately attempting "to confuse folks in their faith." Bearing false witness of another is a mortal sin. That's your (serious) problem right now, whereas I am no heretic."
Your article in the Register had no apparent purpose that allowing multiple interpretations just as Vatican II does, e.g., Pope Francis is personification of Vatican II ambiguity and double talk. Vatican II, as I said, was a catastrophe for the Catholic Church. There is no question about this. If your article was not confusing why have you expended so many words trying to defend it?
I will say a prayer for you Dave.
Dave,
Oh boy, there's a lot going on here. Though you say you defend 'no salvation outside of the Church', your article is theologically misleading. I am glad to know you are trying to call people to the truth, but your article is lacking substance and you are shooting the messengers.
First and foremost, the validity of protestant baptisms merely opens the door to salvation. Living a life steeped in unabsolved mortal sin closes that door. Are there exceptions? Of course, but our role is to convert as many as possible to the Sacraments and living every day in a state of Sanctifying Grace as that is the only guarantee of salvation. That is the 'biblical' story about ecumenism. You are making it sound like people are simply in the wrong fraternity when the spiritual substance is about unabsolved sin.
This kind of immature nonsense makes it difficult to convince me that you want to have an honest discussion:
"The article was, of course, 95% consisting of Bible passages. So if you are arguing with it, take it up with God and the inspired Bible writers (or with my interpretation). It's easy to say stupid things about another's stated arguments; quite another to actually make a rational counter-argument."
You are trying to convince us that because you cited Scripture, the title of your article and your commentary is an adjunct to infallible Magisterium. How do you expect us to take this conversation seriously?
"I'm trying to show that Jesus and the apostles were tolerant of those in error,"
No Dave, He was not. He completely excluded the Gentiles and numerous times explained that we do not throw pearls to swine, do not give what is holy to dogs.
Here is the root cause of your confusion:
"You make out as if I am claiming that all religions are equally salvific. All I said was that they are "possibly" so"
No other religion is 'possibly' salvific. It is possible that some who were led astray to obtain salvation but the religion itself is not salvific. You are offering false hope and using Sacred Scripture to do it.
You also conflate 'traditions' with 'Catholicism'. Here at TTC, we are just Catholics who are comparing your article to Catholic theology. It's tough to receive criticism in good faith. But I would invite you to prayerfully lay down your defensive armament and listen to what educated Catholics are trying to tell you.
"If your article was not confusing why have you expended so many words trying to defend it?"
It ALWAYS takes many more words to adequately defend a position against false accusations, than to make the stupid accusations in the first place. If I say, for example, "Michael is a Russian spy" that's just five words. Do you think five words would be adequate to refute the charge? You can't just say, "No, Michael is NOT a Russian spy." You have to go into a dozen different things to blow it out of the water as groundless, and it would end up being probably 100 or more times the amount of words as the accusation.
There were a ton here: from claiming that I have changed, to saying I was still half-Protestant, bashing of Vatican II, misguided uses of Scripture, claiming that apologetics and ecumenism are antithetical, charges that I am a heretic or no longer believe in no salvation outside the Church, etc. I use as many words as it takes to refute the false charge, and then I get this sort of silliness, too. The problem is the magnitude of errors in the accusations, not with my article.
Error is always droningly boring and boorish. It's the truth that is exciting and has many colors in its complexity.
"No other religion is 'possibly' salvific. It is possible that some who were led astray to obtain salvation but the religion itself is not salvific."
This is the only valid objection amidst all the slop in this discussion. I didn't express myself carefully enough, and caught that error before reading this, as reflected in my change of language in the blog post. I had changed it (many hours ago now), to read:
"I said no such thing. You make out as if I am claiming that all religions are equally salvific. All I said was that nonbelievers who haven’t heard the gospel can “possibly” be saved [Romans 2 teaches the same concept]. Period. After all, you have to explain the text. It does say “accepted with him” and that means something. I’ve only talked about possibilities."
I'm glad you did at least come up with one legitimate criticism: and it was based on a lack of precision in my language that I corrected, myself.
Re: Dave (save), Oh boy...
Well put Carol. Dave may be trying to broaden the "fisherman's net", so to speak, with his article and comments. If so, it would have been better to state this at the beginning of the article and posit his musing as his opinion only.
Dave,
I'm glad to hear your intention was to convey and strengthen the practice of love and charity to non-believers followed by teaching truth when and where appropriate. (Incidentally, this long-standing practice has nothing to do with "Vatican II", as it preceded Vatican II by 1959 years, which you document in your defense)
While this was your intention, you failed to express and convey your thoughts in a way that leads people to this conclusion. Rather than admit it, you have chosen the path of character assassinations and going to great lengths to explain what the article doesn't say. The pope has the same flaw. It's a way to avoid admitting you made a booboo and be more careful in the future about how you express what conclusion you wanted people to draw from your efforts.
I'm actually very (pleasantly) surprised to hear you state it is your intention to call protestants to conversion and the Sacraments. I've read things you've written that were off of the theological reservation and checked out of reading what you write. Your intentions are not making it from your head and heart to your writing. It's missing pieces of the puzzle.
Instead of accusing your critics of being sedevacanists, I would invite you to prayerfully consider reviewing your writings to see if they convey Catholic theology. You have to write every article as an independent piece of work from the things you've written on facebook or conversations you have in your personal life. While it may seem to be a cohesive tapestry to you, most readers are not going to be aware of these pieces of the puzzle.
The article we are discussing is a hot mess. Man up.
Dave--
In a few words, could you please explain why you wanted this article published in the first place? Evidently, some of us---perhaps unjustifiably---have read something into it you didn't intend.
Very well stated TTC!
I have refrained from entering into the "apology" of his NCR article here which Mr. Armstrong rightly identifies here as being needed, by his commenting on the issue here.
You need look no further than the comments at NCR to see clearly the ambiguity of his article.
We need a balance of clarity AND charity. Not an over abundance of clarity at the expense of charity and NOT and over abundance of charity at the expense of clarity.
Mr. Armstrong cleared things up here but his NCR article has nevertheless left its readers to determine whatever they want it to mean. Sadly.
Carol--
Very excellent response to Dave. My instant and aggressive response was a reaction to what seemed like a fill-in-the-blank, open ended article that was ambiguous and would cause confusion. It reminded me of Vatican II and especially Pope Francis, neither of which help folks get to heaven.
"Instead of accusing your critics of being sedevacanists"
I never accused anyone here of that (nor of schism); never used the word. I say you are radical Catholic reactionaries, which I very carefully distinguish from mainstream traditionalism (to which I am quite close in many ways).
I explain the terminology here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2012/12/definitions-radical-catholic.html
Since no one is interacting with my actual arguments (as usual) -- instead it's the usual talking (and ranting) *about* articles and persons, without addressing the reasoning --, I see no reason to waste any more time here. Thanks for posting my comments.
Armstrong reflects the true MO of Catholic "apologists." They're more interested in defending every remark a sitting Pope makes -- especially on prudential concerns -- than in proclaiming and defending truth. They are the biggest perpetrators of papolatry in the church, more so than even Francis' appointees.
Dave, Yes, please stop. Have had about all of the intellectually dishonesty that I can stand. You posted a story implying Scripture sanctions other religions. It's a theological error the editors at EWTN should have caught and sent into the trash barrel.
Post a Comment