I'm flattered that you've taken an interest in my blog sites, Mr. Armstrong, but less than impressed that you do not seem willing accurately to reflect their contents.
I have, over the years, repeatedly, consistently and strongly condemned the ELCA's position on abortion. And will continue to do so.
I'm not a member of that church body.
I still believe that Rome has quite enough to clean up in its own ranks before it returns to its Medieval habit of lecturing world governments on what to do.
A history of profligate Popes in the past and homosexual priests in the present would seem to indicate that Rome has quite enough to do to get its own house in order.
I have, over the years, repeatedly, consistently and strongly condemned the ELCA's position on abortion. And will continue to do so.
I didn't say you didn't. I would expect that you would have done so, and almost put that line in my post, but alas, I did not. In my post, I didn't say you hadn't done this. Rather, the point was that it was better to concentrate on that rather than knocking the Catholic Church's developing perspective on the death penalty:
"They might be better served by concentrating their vigorous condemnations on things like the ELCA's official pro-abortion position, rather than distorting crucial, fundamental details with regard to the Catholic Church's attempt to promote a culture of life by making the death penalty as rare an event as possible."
I never claimed, of course, to have read every post on your blog. I've only read the ones I have recently taken an interest in.
Taking potshots at "Rome" does not alleviate your responsibility to honestly consider shortcomings in Lutheranism. I have an entire web page devoted to the Inquisition, the Crusades, and other Catholic scandals (including the oft-mentioned sexual scandal).
All you are showing recently is that you put on blinders when it comes to Lutheranism and that you love to preach to your choir, but not entertain the slightest criticism of anything Lutheran.
It's fine to decide not to spend time debating. I already acknowledged that in private letters. But you aren't just doing that: you insist on making blasts against Catholics (and Calvinists), and then
object if anyone doesn't agree with the slightest jot and tittle of your comments.
All these things have to be fairly considered. It is also true that rates of pedophilia and heterosexual sexual misdeeds are just as prevalent if not more so, in Protestant ranks:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
committed.html
So in sexual matters as in all others, there is plenty of sin and scandal to go around. The problem is concupiscence and the sexual revolution, which afflicts all Christian bodies, not just the Catholic Church.
I see no reason why someone like you and I cannot join together to fight sexual immorality, and to join in fighting abortion, rather than you taking potshots at the tiny proportion of Catholic pedophiles and ignoring similar Protestant sexual scandals.
I'll bet you haven't written about Protestant sexual scandals. If you have, good for you!
But the devil loves Christian division. I can't even write about any faults in historic Protestantism, while you have free reign to rail about the Inquisition until Kingdom Come.
Sorry, my friend. That is a double standard, and I will never bow to that, either as an amateur historian and student of Christian history and doctrine, or as an apologist.
As long as the Catholic Church is blasted in a one-sided, highly selective fashion, I
(cont.)
. . . will always turn the tables and "even the score" or "level the playing field" (choose whatever metaphor you like).
+ + + + + + + + + +
And now the cat's out of the bag. I informed Pastor Weedon on his blog (in my usual custom of courtesy) that I had responded to some of his comments:
---------
Dear Rev. Weedon,
I didn't see your e-mail listed anywhere, so I have replied here. I wanted to let you know that I responded to your (and your friend Rev. McCain's) thoughts on the death penalty and the Catholic Church's position on that, on my blog:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...pastors-
on.html
You're welcome to respond there if you wish. I think it could be a very helpful exchange.
In Him,
Dave
http://weedon.blogspot.com/2007/
...289276516767506
--------------------
But Rev. McCain feels he can read hearts and minds, and so commented there, right under mine (nine minutes later):
---------------------
Bill,
Warning!
Dave Armstrong is one of those sad persons who apparently spend nearly every waking moment on their Internet site. He is a Roman Catholic apologist who culls through the Internet looking for any chance he can to pounce on people who dare breathe a word of protest against what "Holy Mother" Rome has to say on anything. As is the case with most apologists like him, he tends to get his facts pretty screwed up.
If you engage him, it is akin to sticking your hand on flypaper, he and his groupies like to swarm.
He is the Roman version of a guy like James White, who has a similar style.
Dave Armstrong is not interested in "helpful discussion" but only attacking non-Romanists. I informed him that he is unwelcome to post on any of my blog sites. He only wants a platform to spread his false teachings.
Just a word of caution.
http://weedon.blogspot.com/2007/
...286673335125652
---------------------------
This doesn't even accurately report what happened as to my comments on his blog posts. It is both inaccurate and wrong in that it implies that I am lying through my own teeth about my own motivations. I initially wrote to Rev. McCain:
---------------------
Dear Rev. McCain,
I hope you and yours are well today.
I wanted to write to you personally with regard to the several comments I made today on your blog and on the "Confessions" blog. I'm not trying to "troll" or anything of the sort. I would like to engage in further amiable discussion with Lutherans, for whom I have a great deal of respect (as I stated in one or two of the posts). I have enjoyed many wonderful and constructive dialogues with [name: a Lutheran], and he recommended your blog to me, as perhaps the leading online source of Lutheran apologetics. Today I just happened to see several threads that interested me, and so I commented.
I'm not trying to be overly provocative or to create controversy, or anything of the sort, though some of my statements (since I am a plain-speaking Catholic) will no doubt be perceived as controversial in content and/or intent, and some "fireworks" may result in the replies. That can't always be avoided. In any event, however, I don't see why any hostility or animosity whatever should be present.
If you and your pastor-brethren on these blogs are interested in serious discussion with a Catholic apologist who is also quite ecumenical, then it should be fine. You may not be, and that is okay, too. We can't all do all things or spread ourselves too thin. If not, please let me know, as I don't want to be perceived as a rabble-rouser who is trying to stir up a hornet's nest, rather than seeking to engage in serious, but pleasant, good-natured, mutually-respectful discussion about honestly-held differences between Christians.
My main concern was to nip in the bud any notion that I am trying to swarm the two blogs with "a bunch of Catholic stuff" and to make sure that I am not intruding or being presumptuous, as this is overwhelmingly Lutheran territory. I follow what interests me. There just happened to be several threads that interested me enough to take time commenting today. Other times, it may be weeks without things that I would want to discuss.
In recent days, I have definitely come to the conclusion that Lutherans are the best representatives of a (for the most part) consistent, respectable Protestantism: far more so than the Reformed or the (traditional) Anglicans. Therefore, since I am always looking for good, challenging Catholic-Protestant discussion, I have gravitated towards Lutheran blogs; yours being, I think, a great, thoughtful example of same.
Your brother in Christ,
Dave
--------------
Real nasty, wicked stuff there, isn't it? In his return letter, I was not informed that I was "unwelcome"; only that his sites are intended as basically in-house Lutheran venues, not places of debate with non-Lutherans.
Once I understood that, I stopped posting. But even so, Rev. McCain allowed my "nice" comment about Lutherans and another about a little point concerning baptism of desire. He thus allowed two of my comments while deleting two others that were controversial because they disagreed with Lutheranism.
Here are the two URL's and complete comments (in case they are deleted later):
-----------------
I think this is an insightful observation that applies to all sorts of Christians, across the board. It's very easy to fall into negativism or a "reactive" emphasis because that seems to go along with the widespread shortcomings of human nature (gossip, oversensitivity, hyper-critical remarks, judgmentalism, personal insecurities, etc.).
I think we all need to learn how to present what we feel is the best version of Christian truth positively, charitably, and pleasantly. It's an ongoing task.
Speaking for myself, as a Catholic and therefore outside observer of Lutherans, y'all are, in my estimation, the most respectable and intellectually cogent Protestant denomination. I say that after years of interaction with all sorts of Protestants (and being an evangelical Protestant myself, from 1977-1990).
I've enjoyed my dialogues with Lutherans through the years. I disagree with many things, of course, but it is with a lot of respect and thankfulness for all that Lutherans and Lutheranism have brought to Christianity, historically and in the present era.
http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com...omment-
63824024
I imagine that Lutherans have a notion of an "exception clause" to the necessity of baptism just as we Catholics do (we call it baptism of desire, which was mentioned even at Trent).
Perhaps Lutherans (like us) would say that baptism is the normative means of regeneration (and/or salvation), but in some extraordinary cases of inability of access (the thief on the cross being the classic example), God is still able and willing to save without baptism taking place?
(under the post, "Roundtable 10: Baptism")
http://
bookofconcord.blogspot.co...confession.html
Rev. McCain wrote three short letters to me: none of which implied that I was "unwelcome" -- let alone all the nefarious things that he now is saying.
Here is my third letter to him (the second was just two quick questions):
--------------------
Dear Rev. McCain,
Just to let you know, out of courtesy: from time to time I may be writing responses to material that appears on either of your blogs, as I did both yesterday (the title "Lutheran") and today (concerning Calvinist iconoclasm; currently being written). If you wish, I can let you know each time I do so. Or you can simply check out my "Luther & Lutheranism" page every now and then:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...index-
page.html
I understand you are not personally interested in debate (or else have no time to do so, which is altogether understandable), but as this material is all public, then it is perfectly appropriate for anyone who disagrees to do so in public as well.
You or any other Lutherans, are, of course, perfectly welcome to comment on my blog on these articles or others at any time. My blog has a three-year-plus history of respectfulness and politeness towards our Protestant regulars and visitors.
May God bless you as you faithfully serve Him in the ministry,
Dave Armstrong
----------------------------
All it took to bring out the venom and false accusations was to simply disagree with something Lutheran. Now I am a liar and who knows what else. Anyone can see what my intentions were in my letters above. Apologetics is not antithetical to cordial, polite, respectful discourse. Past Lutherans are not identical to today's, etc.
How sad that this sort of nonsense is so common.
It seems that (conservative) Lutheran hypersensitivity is going around these days. Readers of this blog may recall a recent exchange in which I speculated on the identity of a person who used a nickname on a Lutheran blog and legal-type language was thrown out, to the effect that I might be facing a lawsuit.
Wow . . . I think we all need to lighten up on all sides. Rev. McCain preaches his Lutheran doctrine and has no wish to debate it.
I am an apologist and I defend Catholic beliefs and critique other ones. Two different occupations: both perfectly acceptable.
But I am obviously far more respectful of Lutherans and Lutheranism than Rev. McCain is of Catholics (at least wild-eyed, fire-breathing apologist-types like me) and Catholicism.
test
Dave,
WHere I live there was an execution of a murderer/rapist. The Catholic clergy held an ecumenical prayer meeting at a congregationalist church next to the prison. The congregational church (UCC) is pro abortion and even runs commercials claimining that Christians are bigots for opposing homosexuality.
How do actions like this help advance a "culture of life"?
How do actions like this help advance a "culture of life"?
Just for fun, let's grant that the answer is "not much". What does that have to do with anything?
I would say that this sends a mixed message. On the other hand, we join with others all the time with whom we don't agree on many issues.
Commenting by HaloScan
