I believe our separated brethren in the Roman Church belong to a false-teaching Church, but I do not believe they are all, necessarily, non-Christians.
"There is no pope." (Gertrude Stein)
How about me; did I make it in?
I believe our separated brethren in the Roman Church belong to a false-teaching Church, but I do not believe they are all, necessarily, non-Christians.
Dear Reverend McCain,
Thanks for the vote of confidence! 
"There is no pope." (Gertrude Stein)
“There is indeed a Pope, but no Gertrude Stein." (Ben M)
How about me; did I make it in?
Just my opinion Dave, but despite heated differences, I think Luther (and the good Reverend) would answer that question in the AFFIRMATIVE!
See Luther's rather interesting comments about "Papists" here: http://thumbsnap.com/v/7D4wOkI4.jpg
From Luther’s Works, volume 24,
http://www.amazon.com/Luthers-Wo...80850400&sr=1-
1
http://books.google.com/books?as..._maxy=&
as_isbn=
And FWIW, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once remarked,
“[Jews, Protestants and Catholics] may not be able to meet in the same pew—would to God we did—but we can meet on our knees.” http://www.time.com/time/
magazin...,857162,00.html
Surely a remark worth pondering.
Dave,
Mocking the prophets of Baal or the Pharisees does not add up to mocking what you consider "brothers and sisters in Christ". Stop hiding behind that excuse.
Interesting also that you did not invoke the mercies of the BVM. Can anyone find their way to Jesus without the intercession of Mary? I find the fact that Catholics downplay the use of Mary around Protestants quite revealing.
Carrie,
Catholics don't "use" Mary.
They also don't "downplay" her around Protestants. How can we?!? Catholic belief and practice with respect to her are a principle stumbling block for Protestants, and *they* bring the subject up all the time!
On the other hand, frequently Protestants have a simply false notion of what Catholics think of her. They suppose that we "worship" her, which is ludicrous. So when it turns out that we do not worship her in their presence, I suppose they might might think that we are "downplaying" her. But we can hardly be called to account for Protestant misunderstandings.
Dear Dave,
I just wanted to tell you thanks for your work on this website and all the help your writtings have been to me and the people that I have shared them with, to help us understand and defend our Faith and hopefully to live better lives.
It really helps "dummmies" like me to see these debates between "heavyweights" like yourself and the people that you argue with, it clears away a lot of the "overbrush" and exposes the bedrock issues where all these religious arguments must eventually arrive at, viz. The Issue of Authority and epistomology.
God Bless You and also your "adversaries"
Mike Wilson
Interesting also that you did not invoke the mercies of the BVM.
Why? If the Mass doesn't do so, why in the world would you think it is unusual that I didn't? But if I have fallen short of a good Christian witness in your eyes, please pray for me, too. Thanks beforehand. May God bless you.
Mocking the prophets of Baal or the Pharisees does not add up to mocking what you consider "brothers and sisters in Christ". Stop hiding behind that excuse.
If you are so concerned with my mostly harmless humor, what is your opinion of James White's two visual caricatures of me, done by his artist friend Angel: one portraying me as a hateful, spiteful person, and the other, as a liar who breaks vows? Or how about Eric Svendsen's National Enquirer satire that had a child growing out of my chest and a supposed connection with Holocaust deniers? Do you condemn those as unethical?
I conveyed the truth, using a humorous means, in my videos of the Three Stooges. If someone is engaging in personal attacks against brothers in Christ, such as Steve Hays did with Scott Hahn, or Rev. McCain does to me right on my own blog (because I allow him to, whereas he won't allow me to comment on his blog), or James Swan's three hit pieces a week, then it is perfectly acceptable to humorously compare their silly tactics with a Three Stooges pie fight.
Are you able and willing to actually have a conversation, or do you just wanna come here and get in your (groundless) potshot and then split?
Hi Michael,
Thanks very much for your kind words and encouragement. Praise be to God if you have received some assistance through this poor vessel, in order to better live out your faith with a fuller commitment. To God be all the glory for all His mercies and gifts!
James Swan responds:
I'm wondering if this was Dave's dinner prayer he mentioned, and if not, if he actually prayed this, or if he plans on praying this.
(" Attention Catholic Friends: Please Don’t Pray For Me")
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...lease-
dont.html
Pretty much too silly to waste time commenting on . . . I'd love to see what others think of such a ludicrous statement, though.
Also on his blog:
The video clips of the Three Stooges appear to have vanished from Dave Armstrong's blog. I don't know what the reason was. The 2 or 3 of you following this blog [well no; as of today he averages 137 hits a day; more annoying false humility] know that I have pointed out things like this before from DA. Once I mention something odd on DA's blog, they can vanish or change. This was something I learned early about DA when formulating a response to him on Luther's Mariology. His work went through at least three major revisions. I would be working on response to him, only to review the page to find out the point I was responding to had changed.
Whatever Armstrong's reasons for removing the video clips, he did the right thing. We all write and post things we should not.
("From Satire to Sad: Dave Armstrong: Out of Touch")
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...ire-to-
sad.html
Isn't it fascinating how James thinks:
1) They were removed purely because of him. Reminds me of the old Carly Simon song: "you're so vain; you probably think this song is about you."
2) Removal from the front page implies that I was, in effect, admitting I did something wrong.
But there are a number of possible, plausible explanations that don't entail acknowledgment that the videos were unethical:
A) I could have intended the videos as merely temporary from the outset (which I've done before on several occasions).
B) I could have moved them off the front page but retained them on my blog (which I've often done; I just did that, e.g., with a YouTube video of CCM guitarist Phil Keaggy, because I wanted other stuff on the front page more than I wanted that).
C) I may have thought that the two videos had (quite predictably) been misinterpreted and had caused extreme overreaction from the intended recipients of the humor and their devotees; thus, as a prudential decision, removed them so as to not affect (by irrationality of response) the reception of the far more important prayer for non-Catholics, while continuing to believe the humor and satire perfectly apt and acceptable and altogether defensible.
D) I could have thought that the recipients were too weak to handle such humor, and so removed the videos as an act of charity and taking into account the weakness of a brother, so as not to make him stumble (albeit without proper reason). It's like how we parents approach different children at various levels of forcefulness. What would barely get one child to obey would practically traumatize another of a much more mild and meek temperament.
(cont.)
. . . If in fact they were removed because I felt I had done something wrong, then I certainly would have admitted that and talked about it, as I virtually always do whenever there is some controversy and I remove something.
I don't hide anything. If I 'm wrong, I openly state that I was, retract, and apologize. I have no problem with that. I've done it dozens of times over the years online. People who have followed my writings through the years are fully aware of this.
Swan continues to be clueless about why I do what I do (shown again in his remarks about my supposedly constantly changing my papers, and supposedly in response to his profound countering wisdom), and about many of my arguments.
He will, no doubt, continue to do so as long as he is blinded by anti-Catholic and personal animus, and doesn't take me "seriously" etc. His problems and deficiencies are his own. They don't affect in any significant way, what I do. At times (when I am bored) I have some fun toying with him, to produce ultra-predictable replies from him, for my own amusement, and as a way to deal with his petty and obnoxious anti-Catholic condescension.
But it's best, all in all, to keep those things to a minimum. I've never had much patience at all for folly, and that is why I have mostly avoided anti-Catholics through the years. I don't want to make that an absolute, because sometimes it is required, as an apologist trying to defend the faith against attack, but it remains my general inclination.
I was curious how he would react to this, and he did exactly as I predicted in my head that he would (the man is nothing if not utterly predictable). But I shall try henceforth to avoid his site as much as possible; not even (by God's grace) checking in out of curiosity's and fun's sake, as I have been doing recently. It's like a bad habit that one must give up (like eating too many donuts or continually tuning into a radio station with lousy, unedifying music).
I may record his reply to this, though, because it will be one for the ages, no doubt.
By the way, the correct explanation of my actual reasoning was Point C above. I reiterate, just to make it crystal-clear: there was absolutely nothing wrong with posting these videos. The satirical point they made fit the circumstances perfectly.
These people need to lighten up. I can think of few instances of humor more harmless than those were. The extreme reaction to them only reinforces the impression that these people (anti-Catholics or nearly so) are pompous and arrogant in how they approach Catholics in the first place.
People who can laugh at themselves react much differently. For example, Baptist Ken Temple, the regular on this blog, and I have been having this (quite vigorous and meaty) discussion about Protestants' first principles of authority.
I posted three pictures of a dog chasing his own tail (as a word picture of circular
(cont.)
. . . reasoning), and Ken stated that he busted a gut laughing at them. This is one reason I like the man and admire him. He's not pompous. He can take ribbing and humor. That's the difference. But people who are too full of themselves in the first place cannot laugh at themselves and take any humor.
It's like James White posting two caricatures of me (described above in this thread) and one of Pat Madrid being stoned. That's fine and dandy (he doesn't think twice about it), but let wicked, evil Dave Armstrong merely stretch a picture of his face out and you would think I had insulted his wife and children, stolen his life savings and attempted to murder his dog. He clearly can't take his own medicine. It's the double standard thing again.
May God grant to all of us the ability to laugh at ourselves and not take ourselves too seriously, as if we are above all criticism.
I think the following got deleted when I removed the Three Stooges videos. I want to preserve it for the record (posted from Jimbo Swan's blog):
ME: I pointed out in dinner conversation with my wife Judy that you [Swan] are foolish enough to actually think that the existence of satire and fun along with serious prayer for hyper-critics are somehow incompatible. She readily understood that as an obvious untruth. Why you don't is the weird thing. Jesus and Paul used a lot of satire themselves. I don't think even you would accuse them of not sincerely praying for their detractors.
SWAN: Let's play in the wacky world ballpark for a minute. Does anyone really believe that Paul and Jesus would mock their opponents by posting clips from the Three Stooges and comparing those people to this content?
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...ire-to-
sad.html
SWAN: Finally, the question always arises if I think Roman Catholics are Christians. My standard answer is the Roman Catholic Church officially denies the gospel, and does not teach or preach the gospel. On the other hand, I do not know the heart of individual Roman Catholics. Some may indeed be Christians, but it’s not because of Rome’s official teaching, but in spite of it. That being said, those who embrace Rome, and try to get Protestants to convert to Roman Catholicism (i.e., a spiritual upgrade), usually accept Rome’s teaching of the gospel, and therefore are probably not Christians. I can’t know their heart, but I can judge their fruit.
[standard anti-Catholic fare; as predictable as the sun coming up. I obviously am not a Christian, then, and so -- being unregenerate and Totally Depraved, Swan can dismiss me as a lying scoundrel and not take me seriously. This is how anti-Catholics actually think]
I'm not really sure what DA means when he says he's praying for me. . . .
What is Armstrong praying for? I don’t really know. Is he praying that I will miss the fires of Hades and embrace Christ? I don’t think so. You see, I am a Protestant, a “separated brother.” He’s probably praying I embrace the higher more revealed truth of Roman Catholicism, so I can upgrade my spiritual account to gold status. I’ll be privileged to all the extra benefits card carrying Catholics receive: help from the saints, more ways to get out of purgatory quicker, certainty, Church history, the Eucharist, etc. All these will function to make me, one day, get into heaven by being perfected.
So, if I am correct in this assessment, I do not want Mr. Armstrong praying for me. I will never embrace a false works righteousness gospel. I believe the Roman Catholic Church does not teach the Gospel. . . .
I have no idea whom Armstrong thinks he is praying to: a saint? Mary? Jesus? I deny that the saints and Mary even hear prayers.
http://beggarsallreformation.blo...lease-
dont.html
Per the anti-Catholic playbook, a guy (safely anonymous; also as so often) who goes by "discipled by Him" writes on James Swan's blog:
------------------------
After reading through more of DA's absolutely astonishing blog post that he calls a "prayer", I am convinced that he is completely and totally removed from anything I could remotely consider reasonable but utterly unstable, obsessive, and self absorbed.
The whole post is a complete embarrassment and a shallow facade of what real prayer is. He parades around acting as if he is sincere and genuine, but if you are somewhat cognitive of anything at all, you can plainly see these are subtle jabs at recent posts and remarks on James' blog dressed up as a "prayer" to God. It's nothing more than a shallow apologetic defense of Roman Catholicism against Protestants scantily clad with temporary humility while smitten with underlying tones of pomp and arrogance are scattered throughout.
Please spare us with this overdramatic, self absorbed waste of internet space Dave.
Your efforts at dramatizing these previous few posts and remarks on James blog were futile and downright shameful, not to mention how terribly disappointing it is to see you try to dress it up in a faux prayer. Tasteless. That will certainly be the last time I visit your site through a link from someone else's blog. I'd rather spend some time reading something worth my while than dancing through your egotistical-semi-maniacal jibberish.
The irony of your whole post is that while you consider Protestants "brethren" you turn around and bash them at almost every chance you get, and act like you have some kind of fruitful edifying relationship with us. Our prayer for you could simply be a reversal of your post integrated into the Protestant position on brotherhood, and what constitutes it. I highly doubt anyone will seriously revert to such a pathetic example of a faux prayer for "separated brethren", blanketed with the Protestant position on Papists, and try to pass it off as a sincere way of trying to unify both denominations, while all along really mocking you while reading between the lines. I thought it was pretty sad and distasteful, as I don't believe you were sincere at all and only created this post for James and his readers sake, which ultimately leads to your sake. Classic DA at his worst.
Dave,
Below is a "prayer" from Luther's Table Talk. No doubt you would have received less flack had you modeled your prayer after it.
"The Lord fill you with his benediction, and with hatred of the pope!"
http://books.google.com/books?id...b-M2iAmqgO-
IhMM
Dave, your blog site, and many others similar to it, both RC and Protestant, would be a lot more interesting if you would stop all the defensiveness. In other words, when you are criticized or attacked, don't waste your time responding, it only comes off as self-serving and defensive and self-indulgent.
Stick with teaching doctrine.
Your blog is clogged up with all kinds of "personal attack" posts and then "I'm being attacked" posts.
Silly, Dave. It just makes you appear small, immature and quite insecure.
The better theological blog sites out there devote far more attention to dealing with issues and teaching rather than attacking other bloggers by name and playing the "he said, I said, then he said" game.
In other words, stop taking yourself so seriously and stop all the self-referential posts. You are just making yourself foolish and your position weak.
Ben LOL
I wholeheartedly agree, Rev. McCain. You've attacked me a number of times on my own blog (including above) and I have ignored it.
I will continue to speak out against unethical behavior and slander (as opposed to defending myself, which I am trying to avoid as much as possible), because the Apostle Paul thought that was a great sin, and I fully agree with him.
If that makes me unpopular and appear in your eyes as (how did you put it?) "self-serving and defensive and self-indulgent" and "small, immature and quite insecure" then so be it.
When I rebuke these behaviors and people don't like it, their beef and fight is with Paul, not me. Let them war with the Bible if they must. I can't stop them, but I can speak out against sin and wicked divisiveness.
I'm embarassed for you Dave. You just can't stop talking about yourself in your blog posts and recounting the "blogger who offended me" of the day story in actual posts you put on your blog site. It is truly pathetic Dave.
I've never put up a blog post on any of my sites naming you by name, and engaging in the long screeds you are so fond of or the immature humor you like to indulge in. Grow up. Be a man and stop acting like a 14 year old kid in an Internet chat room.
I'm quite sure that Rome deserves better and, frankly, even you realize it.
I hope you have some friends who can counsel you and help you find a more constructive manner in which to go about your "apologetics" work.
Truly, I'm embarrassed for you.
That's my last comment here, or anywhere, about you, Dave. The best/worst thing that a person can do to a dysfunctional personality like yours is ignore them. God bless.
It is amazing to me that people respond to a prayer for unity with a critique of the prayer itself. Can we not bury the hatchet long enough to pray together? Who cares about the exact words. As long as there is a spirit of genuine christian love we should be happy people are praying for us.
It's a pity that a so called man of the cloth like Rev. Mccain has to stoop to petty insults and taunts in order to feel that he has to get his point across. I guess that hatred of thy enemies in the name of Jesus is common practice in Lutheran seminaries.
That's my last comment here, or anywhere, about you, Dave.
Promise?
Looks like you’re taking a bit of a pounding, Dave. But as least you haven’t been thrown to the lions-yet!
Of course, should all the lions turn out to be like this one, then being thrown to them may not be such a bad thing after all. (And don’t be put off by the title; I can assure you this video is quite inoffensive). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2...related&
search=
Ooops! Don't think I Should have posted this video. Normally I don’t read the comments, or for that matter even see them, since I generally watch You Tube videos full screen. Seems some idiot just couldn’t resist posting vulgarity. I’ll have to be much more attentive to the comments section in the future. Again, my apologies.
That's a cute video! Yeah, you have to watch comments on YouTube (and anywhere else). This is the world we live in.
Looks like you’re taking a bit of a pounding, Dave.
What else is new? I'm happy to be a fool for Christ.
REV. Paul T. McCain wrote:
I've never put up a blog post on any of my sites naming you by name,
Who cares if it is on yours or not? You have done your insults sent my way on other Lutheran blogs, such as Josh Strodtbeck's and Pastor Weedon's, and you do it here. Do you think God cares that you have managed to be selectively tactful on yours, but nowhere else, as if ethics is some kind of hide and seek game?
So you keep yours pure and don't care if you pollute other blogs with your puerile, patronizing rhetoric?
He did an Iron Maiden:
Run to the Hiiiiiiillllls!
Be a great song to parody the lyrics to.
If you are so concerned with my mostly harmless humor, what is your opinion of James White's two visual caricatures of me...
I'm not so concerned with your humor as much as your attempt to defend your humor with biblical support. Your examples of Jesus and Paul are contradictory to your proclamation that Prots are siblings in Christ.
It is the hypocrisy that bothers me.
Sorry that point wasn't clear in my first comment.
Not at all. Jesus and Paul used humor in a way that was far more "cutting" and insulting than virtually anything I've done.
Jesus used heavy sarcasm and exaggeration in the Sermon on the Mount. Surely you can't say He was preaching that to unbelievers. These were believers or disciples. But look what He said:
39: He also told them a parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?
40: A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher.
41: Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
42: Or how can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.
(Luke 6:39-42; cf. Matthew 7:1-5)
Perhaps the most famous instance of sarcasm in Paul was tongue-in-cheek desire for Judaizers to castrate themselves:
6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.
7: You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?
8: This persuasion is not from him who calls you.
9: A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
10: I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine; and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.
11: But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed.
12: I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!
(Gal 5:6-12)
Now, again, the Judaizers were Christians. They weren't pagans or nonbelievers. See the article on them in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
08537a.htm
The relationship of Jews and Christians and the Law and the New Covenant in the early Church was very complex. So, e.g., even Paul circumcised Timothy:
1: And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek.
2: He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Ico'nium.
3: Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
(Acts 16:1-3)
See also my articles:
Should a Christian Ever Contribute to a Mosque Building Fund? / Early Christians and Jewish Synagogue and Temple Worship
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...tribute-
to.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...0293598/
#134339
Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Authority and the Rabbinic Credentials of Jesus and the Apostle Paul
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...n-dialogue-on-
a
(cont.)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
authority.html
Paul called himself a Pharisee more than once. Jesus observed Temple rites and various Pharisaical traditions, and even commanded His followers to observe the teachings of the Pharisees and obey them (Matthew 23:1-3). See my paper:
Refutation of James White: Moses' Seat, the Bible, and Tradition
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...mes-
whites.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...es-
seat_05.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...es-
seat_07.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...1620151515.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...es-
seat_11.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...0722732047.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...es-
seat_12.html
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...moses-
seat.html
Therefore, when Jesus uttered His scathing denunciations of the Pharisees, it was not directed towards total unbelievers, but towards kinsmen who had gone astray and had become hypocrites. The New Testament refers to Christian Pharisees, and Nicodemus was one. Joseph of Arimathea was likely a Pharisee, as we know that he was a member of the Sanhedrin (Mk 15:43), and that body was dominated by Pharisees at the time of Jesus.
Paul was observing purification rites in the Temple when he was arrested (Acts 21:26-2
.
Carl W. Conrad, a classic professor, wrote a post highlighting a number of instances of irony and sarcasm in Paul:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/piperma...714/
001174.html
"I'd like to invite the list to consider some potential instances of Pauline rhetorical "double-speak" and venture opinions on the extent to which the
apostle may on occasion have indulged in deliberate misstatement of his honest perceptions or attitudes for rhetorical purposes.
1. In an exchange yesterday. . . originating on another list, the question arose whether or not it is the case that Paul on more than one
occasion resorts to rhetorical exaggeration, equivocation, irony, even sarcasm in order to enhance, even at peril of distorting them, his intended messages. I want to point to a few texts where one may seriously doubt whether Paul means to be understood literally and some others that may be more ambiguous."
And he produces the following passages:
Romans 15:18-19; 1 Corinthians 1:4-5, 14:18; Gal 5:12.
He concludes:
"I think there may be several points in the Pauline corpus where we ought to
suspect rhetorical exaggeration or even sarcastic humor."
The only unarguable case of humor being used against nonbelievers is Elijah on Mt. Carmel, mocking the prophets of Baal. I never claimed otherwise, but it doesn't follow that,
(cont.)
. . . therefore, such humor, mocking, or sarcasm can never be used against fellow Christians, if they are playing the hypocrite. I have now proven beyond all doubt that this is perfectly permissible, and is one way that we imitate Paul (as he commanded us to) and Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, we have numerous instances of God the Father using humorous analogies, parables, etc., in rebuking the disobedience of His own people, the Jews. We are made in God's image. If God uses a great deal of humor while rebuking, then it follows that we can do so as well.
Case closed. My use of the Three Stooges, comparing it to the legion ad hominem attacks by anti-Catholics against Catholics was entirely apt and extremely mild humor compared to that used by Jesus and Paul, with talk of vipers, whitewashed tombs, logs in the eye, castration, "whose god is their belly" and the like.
I consider them my brethren, but they do not consider Catholics their brothers and sisters in Christ. So why is it that you misdirect your criticism towards me, rather than towards the ones who are truly wickedly reading brethren out of the Body of Christ?
My humor proves nothing of what you charge, but their plain statements manifest their wicked schismatic opinions and divisiveness: attributes that are scathingly condemned many many times by the Apostle Paul.
Now, again, the Judaizers were Christians. They weren't pagans or nonbelievers. See the article on them in the Catholic Encyclopedia
The Judiazers were false teachers, adding works to the simple gospel message of salvation by faith alone.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by your answer based on your religion, but doesn’t common sense tell you that Paul wouldn’t anathemize his own brethren?
It never fails to amaze me that a Catholic can read the Book of Galatians and completely miss the whole point.
See my new post, where I answered this charge at length and (I think) demolished it:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-
messianic.html
10,000 bad credit loan personal 10,000 bad credit loan personal 10,000 bad credit loan personal. canada student loan canada student loan canada student loan.
Commenting by HaloScan
