Monday, September 27, 2010

Is Peter Pike an Anti-Catholic Presbyterian? Yes

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TKExCsps2tI/AAAAAAAADBg/pJax7CugkOw/s1600/Puppy.jpg

Peter Pike, a severe Presbyterian critic of mine, recently wrote in a combox on my site (on 9-24-10):

Dave goes on and on about me being an anti-Catholic. . . . I defy you to produce this cornucopia of anti-Catholic statements I've supposedly uttered. Your readers are all invited to read every single one of my posts no Roman Catholicism here and find anything that supports your claim that I'm an anti-Catholic. The fact is, you won't find it.

Okay; fair enough. Despite all his lying about me recently, I try to do good even to my proclaimed "enemies" (just as our Lord Jesus says we should in the Sermon on the Mount) and so I thought I owed it to Pike to at least check out his writings more carefully, to see if I should modify my opinion of him.

This post was at first a retraction of my contention that Peter Pike was an anti-Catholic, after I looked over a bunch of his posts on Catholicism and didn't find any solid proof there. It was originally entitled: "Retraction: Peter Pike is Not an Anti-Catholic." Hence the picture of the sad-eyed puppy, who is "sorry." I clarified where I thought my reasoning had gone awry, issued an apology as well, and had written:

So how do I proceed now? . . . I shall . . . go over my posts that mention Pike, and remove the designation of anti-Catholic in descriptions of him.

But lo and behold, when I was in the process of doing that I discovered proof from Pike that he was anti-Catholic after all (therefore, that this must have been part of my rationale in the first place). He never has apparently understood the meaning of the word. He seems to think that it is almost a synonym for "bigot" whereas my use has always been, "one who denies that Catholicism as a system is a species of Christianity".

So if he thinks that my classification of him as an anti-Catholic was simply a variant of calling him a bigot, then he was out to sea as to my basic meaning. I agree that I wasn't calling him an anti-Catholic in that sense, because I have never used it with the definition of "bigot" in the first place.

The proof occurs in a Cryablogue thread: "Making the Judaizers Orthodox" (written by anti-Catholic Jason Engwer and dated 9 December 2009): in Pike's combox remarks. Engwer wrote in the post itself:

Evangelicals and Catholics disagree significantly over what "died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3) means. As the book of Galatians illustrates, the adding of works to the gospel nullifies what Paul summarized in 1 Corinthians 15. As he puts it elsewhere in 1 Corinthians itself, the gospel involves the sufficiency of the crucified Christ (1 Corinthians 2:2). . . .

For an explanation of why the Roman Catholic gospel is false and why it should be considered to be under the anathema of Galatians 1, see posts # 94 and # 99 in the thread here.

The gist of the post and ensuing discussion was an analogy between the Judaizers and Catholicism: both supposedly believing in works-salvation, or Pelagianism (and elsewhere I think I have shown that the Judaizers, as the Bible describes them, were actually Christians). In the combox, Jason elaborated:

See the two posts I referenced in the Challies thread above for a further discussion of the degree to which the Judaizers' gospel was wrong and, by implication, the degree to which the Catholic gospel is wrong. . . .

For reasons I've explained already, such as in threads here and in the Challies thread linked above, the possibility that some Catholic and Orthodox signers of the Manhattan Declaration are justified in spite of their group's false gospel isn't sufficient to justify the language of the document about those groups. Individuals who attempt to be justified in a manner contrary to what their group prescribes shouldn't be considered representatives of their group's view of salvation. And the most natural way of reading the Manhattan Declaration, for reasons I've already explained, is that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are orthodox as groups, not just that some individuals within those groups are orthodox. When we judge the Catholic gospel, for example, we judge it in accordance with the assumption that people attempt to be justified through that gospel from the start. We don't assume that they believe the true gospel, then go astray after the Catholic gospel afterward. People who accept the true gospel are sometimes unfaithful to it, as we see with Peter and the Galatians. But we judge a group, like Catholicism, by its gospel alone, without an assumption that another gospel was first or later believed.

Pike made no protest against any of these notions. He responded to Truth Unites . . . and Divides ("TUAD"), who had been asking some penetrating questions, eliciting a query from TAO: "Do you believe that Rome proclaims a false gospel?" Pike then stated:

I think Jason actually addressed your question at the very end of his response when he said:

People who accept the true gospel are sometimes unfaithful to it, as we see with Peter and the Galatians. But we judge a group, like Catholicism, by its gospel alone, without an assumption that another gospel was first or later believed.

In other words, if you are to ask on an individual basis, is such-and-so Judaizer saved, then he very well could have been; but when you say "Were Judaizers as a group saved?" the answer is clearly no, as the Scripture Rhology quoted demonstrates.

The gospel of the Judaizers was a false gospel, and it would always be a false gospel even if some of its members believed in the real Gospel too. Those who believed what the Judaizers put forth would not have saving faith, but there are often people who identify themselves with a certain group without holding to all that that group maintains.

TUAD replied:

But Peter's answer (which I would put in Category D) is what every conservative anti-MD Protestant that I have read says. There are CHRISTIANS in a church/Church which teaches and preaches a false gospel, but they are not damned to Hell. So then it can't be (A) as Rhology asserts. Rather, it must be (D) as Peter argues (in so many words).

Earlier, TUAD had defined his position D as: "(D) Some Judaizers are damned to Hell. Some Judaizers are not damned to Hell. And damned if I know which Judaizer is going where." Pike then replied:

My position would not be your D) because your D) included "And damned if I know which Judaizer is going where." Maybe there are some we don't know the final destination on, but there's plenty of Biblical evidence that gives us the ability to accurately judge most of their states right now. So I can talk to a Catholic, for example, and often tell fairly quickly whether he or she is a Christian in a false church, or lost.

That nails it. That's the ironclad proof. This is classic anti-Catholicism, and is identical to the positions of Luther, Calvin, and James White. In other words, it is the belief that could be expressed as follows:

There are some real Christians in Catholicism, as in most false systems. Some Catholics are saved and will make it to heaven, but if they are, it is despite what their false "church" with its false "gospel" teaches, not because of it. The "Church" itself is a false, non-Christian system.

Hence, when Pike used the description "false church," he proved that he is anti-Catholic. The Catholic Church is a false church; i.e., it is not Christian. Individual Catholics are either "lost" (and Pike -- sadly like so many judgmental, holier-than-thou, Pharisaical anti-Catholics -- seems to think he knows about many folks' final destination, even though John Calvin said we couldn't know this for sure at all), or if they are Christian, it is despite the Catholic Church.

Thus, they are either damned or "a Christian in a false church." That is pure, unbridled anti-Catholicism. Case closed. The "lie" is not in my calling Pike what he is, but in his lying about what the Catholic Church is.

But if Pike has concluded that I am personally no Christian (since I gladly, joyfully, accept all that the Catholic Church teaches, and it is a "false church") and am, in fact, damned to hell, then that would go a long way in explaining his blistering personal attacks, wouldn't it?

* * * * *

One bottom line question, for example, is to ask, in determining whether a person is an ant-Catholic:

Can a Catholic believe in ALL of the doctrines of the Catholic Church and be saved?

If the answer is yes, the person cannot possibly be an anti-Catholic. If it is no, then the person is anti-Catholic, because he is saying that being a consistent Catholic is inconsistent with salvation; it makes it impossible.

Therefore, if the system precludes the possibility of salvation (assuming it is being totally adhered to) it can't possibly be a Christian system (since it is opposed to the central goal of Christianity: to be saved). Therefore, the view reduces to "Catholicism is not a Christian system," which is precisely the doctrinal definition of anti-Catholicism. And that can be determined, pretty much, by one's answer to this single question. If the system precludes salvation, it is not Christian. Period.

I have run across undeniable evidence showing that Peter Pike would deny that a person can be saved, even abiding by the Catholic soteriological doctrines alone. It occurs in a Debate on Justification with the Catholic apologist Kevin Tierney (December 2002):

Man is saved through justification, . . . In order for justification to be biblically consistent, it must conform to the ideas that we saw above. Neither the Roman Catholic system, nor the system of belief of many mainstream Evangelicals today, is harmonic with the Scripture already presented. . . .

There was a time when people felt secure enough to proclaim this truth: what you believe about justification is what you believe about the Gospel! Now, in an effort to offend as few people as possible, any such statements are delegated to the roles of the theological madmen. I am such a madman, however; and let me loudly say that the Catholic idea of justification (and all the Protestant denominations that essentially agree with the Catholic view) is not a saving Gospel. This is not to say that all Catholics are damned, for I have met some Catholics who understand this issue and actually agree with the Reformed position, although why they remain in the Catholic Church is beyond me.

Any Gospel that does not have God doing all the work and man merely passively receiving salvation is not a Gospel of grace, but is instead one of works. It does not matter if the result is so magnificent compared to such trivial labor as faith-any work done by humans at all destroys grace. . . .

Suffice it to say that the historical Reformed Protestant position is both consistent with itself and consistent with Scripture. While there are a few passages that seem to hint, at first glance, at meanings opposite of the Reformed views, any meaningful exegesis of the text will prove that there are no counter-arguments against the Reformed position on the several positive texts that I can put forth, and there are several interpretations that are at least possible, if not likely, for the "tricky" verses that I can posit. I therefore submit that the Biblical Christian must accept the Reformed doctrine of justification or else abandon the term "Biblical" in his title. (Opening Statement; my bolding)

***

56 comments:

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Part 1

Dave,

I think you know me well enough now to have seen the tension in my own thinking on these matters. You know that I hold you in high regard, and that I also hold my Reformed friends in high regard, though you and they are at constant (and seemingly non-ending) loggerheads. Frankly, from my observations, much of that has to do with a clashing of personalities, which is a problem now so removed from the initial doctrinal differences that exchanges have become utterly unfruitful and unedifying. In addition, neither side seems able to understand why I have respect for the other.

Be that as it may, I have stated before publicly that I am not willing to say that Catholics are not Christians in any sense of the word, or that Roman Catholicism as a system is not Christian, that is, within the pale of Orthodox Christendom.

So I make the following assertions regarding these matters:

1) We are not saved by systems of thought, but by the God of grace who reaches down to undeserving sinners, the elect for His own good pleasure, and brings us out of darkness into light by the regeneration of our stony heart which he remakes into a heart of flesh. As a Reformed (Calvinist) believer, I also assert that I do not initiate a seeking after God; He seeks after me and causes me to freely embrace Him in Christ Jesus unto my salvation.

2) God's elect can be found in many or most denominations; they exist there despite any ongoing embracing of certain errors within that system. They may, at some point, leave a particular system as they discover more truth, or they may stay within a system as God directs for their own good and for the edification of their fellow believers and non-believers who remain.

3) The Holy Spirit of God permits His elect to persist in certain errors, sometimes for a very long period of time, even unto the time when He calls us home. Those of us who are true believers should strive to understand and obey truth out of our love for our Saviour and as the proper deportment as befits an adopted child of the King. Nonetheless our minds are subject to futility in our own thinking due to the natural estate of man after his fall from grace. God grants His elect the grace to understand His truth more and more through the continuing renewal of our minds, according as it is His pleasure, and according to His timing. Our understanding or lack of it does not hinder Him in His work in our lives, though our lives are made more complicated and even sorrowful through our ignorance or wilful rebellion against certain revealed truths.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Part 2

Now here is the problem for me as I see it. Although I see Roman Catholicism as prone to many errors, as you know my thoughts on these things, having discussed them at length with you on several occasions, I am not willing to call it a non-Christian system. Nor am I willing to say that Catholics are not, nor can they ever be, Christians, that is, true believers in Christ. In that sense, by my understanding of your definition of anti-Catholic, you would not classify me as anti-Catholic.

But am I really saying anything different to what Peter Pike has said? Though I am not willing to say that Roman Catholicism is a "false"church, I am neither willing to say it is a "true" church in the sense of being mostly (from my viewpoint) doctrinally sound. Now I just may be a coward when it comes to these things. I'm willing to accept the judgement of others, though no one has yet said that to me. But it seems to me that my unwillingness to call a system "false" while at the same time desiring to steer people away from that system is equivocating on my part.

I should be quick to add, since I didn't mention it above where it was most proper, that I am not a "Lone Ranger Christian." There are probably many Protestants in the non-Reformed camp who would fall under that characterisation of "God, me and my Bible." I know you understand that as a Reformed believer, that is not my approach. God's Church is vital to my own salvation. Recognising that we disagree on the definition of Church, you nonetheless are aware that I am a "corporate Christian" in the sense of God's Word and worship, the creeds, Church authorities, and the sacraments.

Now I'm thinking that this could be a fruitful discussion if we can all deal with each other with a view to more light and less heat in these matters. I am willing to accept your judgement of anti-Catholic if you think I am, in fact, eqivocating. Since you have explained here, in a way that I have not heretofore grasped, that your use of the term anti-Catholic is not meant to be a synonym for "bigot," I will listen to what you have to offer on the matter, should you choose to respond. And I hope other Catholics that visit here will respond as well. I'd like to hear from them on these very important issues.

Thanks and blessings in Christ,

Tim

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Man oh man! Having a terrible time trying to post comments. Sorry about the double postings and removals. I couldn't figure out how else to do it without posting out of order or losing the comments all together, which is what seemed to happen at first.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Tim,

Thanks so much for your comments, and you were the thoughtful gentleman as always. Guys like you are the reason I've always had a high respect for the Reformed tradition. I had respect for it as an Arminian Protestant evangelical, and also now as a Catholic.

Though I am not willing to say that Roman Catholicism is a "false"church, I am neither willing to say it is a "true" church in the sense of being mostly (from my viewpoint) doctrinally sound.

That's not all that different from my position as a Catholic, or anyone's position, who thinks seriously about theology. We disagree with each other (honest, heartfelt disagreements), and we all think our system is the most "true" one, or else we wouldn't be part of it.

But it seems clear to me that we ought to rejoice in the large amount of stuff (very important things) that we have in common, and to not deprive each other of the title "Christian." We can do that on the basis of, e.g., C. S. Lewis's outlook in Mere Christianity or the Nicene Creed.

Now I just may be a coward when it comes to these things. I'm willing to accept the judgement of others, though no one has yet said that to me. But it seems to me that my unwillingness to call a system "false" while at the same time desiring to steer people away from that system is equivocating on my part.

Not at all. Again, when you don't read a theology out of Christianity altogether or make a sweeping judgment of it as "false" (as if it is the equivalent of Mormonism or Islam or Jehovah's Witnesses), it doesn't mean that you don't believe yours is the best or that you don't desire to persuade others to your point of view. You can do that, and I certainly do it, while remaining ecumenical and respectful of other Christian traditions and (especially of) the people in them.

Thus, I can say that I consider you an esteemed brother in Christ while at the same time say that I think Catholicism is the fullness of Christianity and the one true Church. A large part of my own life's work is to not only help Catholics be more confident in their beliefs, and informed (esp. from the Bible), and also to persuade Protestants and atheists and Orthodox and anyone else to become Catholics.

I don't see any conflict at all in any of that, let alone equivocation. It's just the way things are, and the nature of truth. There is only one truth (whatever it actually is): we can all agree on that. We all have to seek truth and to follow it to the best of our abilities, by God's grace, and be willing to change our minds if something superior comes along.

I don't define anti-Catholic as "bigot" (never have, and you should have known that long before now, since I have reiterated it times without number), but OTOH, when one looks at what anti-Catholics say about me (with Pike parroting the party line that I am mentally ill and narcissistic and an inveterate liar), it's sure understandable why one would conclude that many of them are indeed bigots against Catholics.

I don't even assert that Peter Pike is literally a bigot, but I sure as hell say that he has incredible, sinful hostility towards me as a person. It's wicked, and it hurts no one but him.

If in fact a person knows that these lies told against myself and other Catholics (esp. apologists) are untrue, then that is a mortal sin, and could exclude them from heaven if unrepented of, every bit as much as Protestants think (what they regard as) our false doctrine might be our undoing.

It's a serious business. The Christian is to show forth love, as part of his or her essence, and I see precious little of that from anti-Catholics towards virtually anyone they disagree with.

But if the anti-Catholicism is dropped or never adopted (as in your case), look at the attitude difference. It's as far as east is from west, or light from darkness.

Dave Armstrong said...

The first part of Tim's comment went into Blogger's spam folder. I don't know how it figures that something is spam.

I restored it (and deleted Pilgrim's re-post of 12:56), thinking that this may cause Blogger not to delete his comments in the future. I don't know. But this whole automatic spam routine could get to be a big nuisance.

It's already caused Peter Pike to call me "dishonest" because it took out a post of his and he concluded that I had done so.

I wish Blogger would let me decide this stuff. Now I have to monitor merely alleged (not actual) spam all the time, to make sure it gets posted. Who has time for all that?

Internet discussion is cramped and warped and deficient and difficult enough without more hindrances introduced to it.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"I had respect for it as an Arminian Protestant evangelical, and also now as a Catholic."

Interesting. How old were you when you swam the Tiber?

What church did you attend as an Arminian Protestant evangelical?

Dave Armstrong said...

I wrote above:

The Christian is to show forth love, as part of his or her essence, and I see precious little of that from anti-Catholics towards virtually anyone they disagree with.

And for an example of that, take a look at some of the typically boorish, uncharitable garbage that Pastor David T. King has been posting lately over on John Q. Doe's blog (directed against Catholic "Blogahon":

***

OK, I'll try to make this simple for you since you do not seem to have basic reading skills. . . . you are so blind in your bias against us that you respond when you don't even understand who said what.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/clueless.html?showComment=1285619133183#c9173008950646343737

I understand that Romanists object when people take the opportunity to point out both the ignorance and stupidity expressed by you folks. But I could care less what you regard as rude.. . . I don't go to Romanist blogs and behave like a perfect idiot. . . . But when you find someone that you can't "buffalo" with the typical Romanist nonsense, but who can actually respond meaningfully, then they are regarded as rude.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/clueless.html?showComment=1285621502986#c8275868418655965275

Dave Armstrong said...

How old were you when you swam the Tiber?

32. How old are you now?

What church did you attend as an Arminian Protestant evangelical?

Lutheran, messianic Jewish, non-denom evangelical, and Assemblies of God. My theology was basically Baptist in nature. What denoms have you attended?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

I've attended Baptist, Presbyterian, non-denominational churches, and various assorted others. They were all pretty similar. Bible-believing churches.

Turretinfan said...

One problem in your comparison to White, Calvin, and Luther is that none of those is properly characterized as "anti-Catholic" either.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

I think it would be helpful for the readers here if TurretinFan could provide a definition of anti-Catholic as he sees it, and why someone like Dr. White is not one. Then we would have a comparison in text form between Dave's definition and that of my Reformed brothers.

Turretinfan said...

PA: If we were going to debate the topic, that's the way we'd go about it. But we're not going to debate it. DA has made it clear that he does not wish to dialog with me, and that's his right under the 5th amendment. - TurretinFan

Dave Armstrong said...

That's correct. But you can debate Pilgrim and others here. It would be refreshing to see you actually sustain a real dialogue, with anyone . . .

Pilgrim asked a perfectly sensible question, and I, for one, would love to see some attempted answer to it. No one ever wants to go to the next stage of the discussion about the term "anti-Catholic." They simply want to distort my stated opinion and never provide one of their own.

Thank God for Pilgrim and his willingness to actually get to second base in the discussion, so that we could actually accomplish something constructive.

This very topic (as TAO well knows) is the reason I gave up attempted dialogue with anti-Catholics in 2007. They weren't willing to discuss the closely related issue of the definition of "Christian."

For TAO to be willing to have that discussion, he required that I first admit that I am not an orthodox Catholic. I had to even define my own category by his criterion. As long as I admitted I was not truly an orthodox Catholic, then he was happy to debate the issue of definition of "Christian."

But I'm not gonna lie about my own opinions, for him or anyone else.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

TF,

Why don't you e-mail me with your definition of anti-Catholic. Just a little secret between heretics! :-)

Pilgrimsarbour said...

TUAD,

That seems fair to me on the surface. But my understanding is that TF would not consider Dave to be a Christian in any sense of the word since he considers Dave's system to be "false." On the other hand, Dave considers Protestants to be "Christians," at least in some sense of the word, though he considers their system to be "false."

Dave can correct me if my assessment is wrong.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

In any case, and Dave understands my objections to this, I don't see why it is necessary to always refer to someone definitionally. If it were up to me and I were writing about what others said and thought, I would not feel a need to describe them as "anti" or "pro." I would let their statements make clear where they stand.

For example, it seems unnecessary to me to say "anti-Catholic TurretinFan" or "anti-Catholic James White." It has the effect of "poisoning the well" right out of the gate since the most prominent and general public understanding of the term seems to indicate a strong bias and bigotry on the part of the person being discussed. I would merely refer to them by their names and let the readers decide for themselves. I wouldn't say, for example, "anti-Protestant Dave Armstrong" since connotations associated with that term carry the danger of misrepresenting his actual views.

Dave Armstrong said...

Why don't you e-mail me with your definition of anti-Catholic.

That would seal the fate of any constructive public discussion, wouldn't it? I wanna see TAO actually give his answer.

Dave Armstrong said...

by the same essential token, would Dave Armstrong be anti-Protestant?

I don't see how, since I have never denied that trinitarian Protestants are Christians.

Dave Armstrong said...

Dave considers Protestants to be "Christians," at least in some sense of the word, though he considers their system to be "false."

No; I (and the Catholic Church don't say that Protestantism is a "false system" (this is the whole point) in the way that I would describe, e.g., JWs or Mormons, who are not Christians at all.

I say that Protestants (of all varieties) have a great deal of truth; they are brothers and sisters in Christ, fully Christian, can be saved and partake in true sacraments (baptism, marriage). It's a matter of degree; they also believe in some falsehoods, but in the main it is good and true.

That is hardly saying that it is a "false system" as if it were far more bad than good. We're not saying, in other words, that it is a counterfeit; only that it is incomplete Christian truth. It's a bit skeletal or minimalistic. Bare-bones Christianity . . .

Dave Armstrong said...

it seems unnecessary to me to say "anti-Catholic TurretinFan" or "anti-Catholic James White." It has the effect of "poisoning the well" right out of the gate since the most prominent and general public understanding of the term seems to indicate a strong bias and bigotry on the part of the person being discussed.

To the contrary, it is important to distinguish because the anti-Catholic position changes everything. The reader then knows he is reading something by a person who doesn't think that Catholicism is a species of Christianity. It is always supremely important to be aware of folks' presuppositions, so that they can be correctly understood, where they are coming from.

If someone doesn't understand the definition of a word, that is not ultimately my problem. I can't stop using it simply because there is ignorance about it. Rather, my task is to explain what I mean, and what is the proper definition used in my context of doctrinal discussion. I've done that a billion times (probably more than anyone else writing today on the Internet.

If someone cannot grasp repeated explanations, filled with documentation of objective scholarly sources, I can't help that. The problem is in comprehension, not in my presentation.

I would merely refer to them by their names and let the readers decide for themselves.

It's easy for you as a Reformed Protestant to not have to worry about such distinctions because you are not subject to the results of them. Catholics consider you a brother in Christ, so it simply doesn't come up. But from where we sit, there is a huge distinction between the vast majority of ecumenical Protestants and the tiny minority of anti-Catholics. It is indeed a very important distinction to note.

Your buddies object to being accurately described; we object to being read out of Christianity altogether. Which of the two do you think is a greater offense?

I wouldn't say, for example, "anti-Protestant Dave Armstrong" since connotations associated with that term carry the danger of misrepresenting his actual views.

It is patently obvious that it makes no sense. Mere disagreement on points a, b, c is not "anti-Protestantism." But an anti-Catholic says I am not a Christian at all. That goes way, FAR beyond honest gentleman's disagreements on doctrinal points.

Dave Armstrong said...

I wouldn't say, for example, "anti-Protestant Dave Armstrong"

But your friends, whom you "respect" are quite content to say:

"inveterate liar Dave Armstrong"
"schizophrenic Dave Armstrong"
"narcissistic Dave Armstrong"
"vow-breaker Dave Armstrong"
"idiot and ignoramus Dave Armstrong"
"self-anointed so-called apologist Dave Armstrong"
"psychotic Dave Armstrong"
"evil Dave Armstrong"
"egomaniac Dave Armstrong"

. . . and so forth. And you're concerned that I simply say they are "anti-Catholic Protestants because they deny that Catholicism is Christian?

Where is the sense of proportion? I know you have condemned some of this publicly, and have had the guts and integrity to defend me even in their forums, but c'mon; we have to have a sense of what is worse: a description that is perfectly legitimate and has scholarly pedigree, or flat-out insults, lies, slanders, smear campaigns . . .

Dave Armstrong said...

And we see this "poisoning of the well" in Dave Armstrong's choice and decision in titling a previous post of his as "Young Earth Creationism Among Leading Online Anti-Catholic Protestants."

Not at all. Your thinking is hopelessly muddled on this. First of all, I actually removed "fundamentalists" from the title, because I came to agree that it had negative connotations and was therefore not helpful. It wasn't essential to the title. It was overkill in that sense (though not particularly inaccurate in describing the people involved). I bowed to usage issues in that case. That shows that I am not completely opposed to such "social" considerations.

But "anti-Catholic" is not analogous, because scholars use it. It describes a category of thought. It literally has to be in this title, because it is essential to the idea or goal of the paper.

The point of the paper was precisely to show a sociological link between YEC and anti-Catholicism, in terms of both being held by those of each position.

The point of all titles is to describe the contents of the paper or book as closely as possible (I as a writer better know that!). So to call it: "Young Earth Creationism Among Leading Online Protestants" would be inaccurate. YEC would be a tiny minority position among Protestants as a whole (as it is amongst Catholics). Thus, such a title would be highly inaccurate and not properly descriptive (the last thing anyone wants in a title).

YEC is, precisely, often held by anti-Catholics: a small group of the much larger entity of Protestants.

What else can I call the paper? It was designed to show a sociological link or association between those Protestants who deny that Catholicism is Christian and YEC.

I could, I suppose, call the paper "Young Earth Creationism Among Leading Online Protestants Who Deny that Catholicism is Christian."

That still works (though it is more awkward and less elegantly simple), but my comeback would be to say that this is what "anti-Catholic" means, anyway. We have descriptions in order to save a lot of writing. That is their purpose in the language. Words mean things.

So if the word is misunderstood, it is time to define it carefully and discuss the definition. But the term itself is perfectly legitimate. I've made my arguments till I am blue in the face. Anti-Catholics never make similar arguments back. It's all emotion and subjectivism and double standards.

All of these online Catholics use their own "anti" language (as I have documented over and over), yet no one in their ranks ever protests against that double standard. They don't apply their own supposed standards to themselves. They continue to use the pejoratives "papist" and "Romanist" -- knowing full well that virtually no Catholic would use these ridiculous terms of himself.

But that's okay, because, well, we ARE Romanists, right? That's about the 2nd grade schoolyard level of the "reasoning" there . . .

Dave Armstrong said...

But both sides have to necessarily be selective. This is what is imprecise in your scenarios. Your language is too sweeping.

To say, "Protestantism is heretical" is not all that meaningful because one has to immediately distinguish WHAT is heretical. It has to be on a case-by-case doctrinal basis. We don't say that regarding the host of things where P's and C's agree.

That is true of even the anti-Catholic position as well. For example, an anti-Catholic couldn't say, "when the Catholic Church teaches that trinitarianism is true, it is heretical," or "when the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is the Savior, it is heretical," or "when the Catholic Church teaches that God created the universe, it is heretical," etc.

If you say "Catholicism is heretical," meaning that it is a false church, a false system, a diabolical counterfeit, that takes it to an entirely different level. If by that is meant, "Catholicism is not a species of Christianity," then we immediately demand to know the basis for which such an extraordinary charge can be made.

I say there is no such case, especially when the Catholic Church is considered historically, and Protestantism as derived directly from it.

I say that both the theological and historical "case" for the anti-Catholic position is intellectually bankrupt; intellectual suicide: shot through with self-defeating notions and self-contradictions at every turn.

Dave Armstrong said...

I have interpreted Pike's comments correctly, in context, as far as I can tell. Saying something is a "false church" is reading it out of Christianity. It's not the same as saying "it is a Christian communion, that teaches some errors," as if the anti-Catholic Reformed position regards Catholicism as on a par with Arminian or Wesleyan or Lutheran Christianity. It does not.

If I have not interpreted him accurately, then he is welcome to come here and speak for himself. It's silly for us to go back and forth about what he meant and didn't mean, when he simply has to come here and inform us himself.

If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it, just as I was willing to change my opinion that Pike was anti-Catholic in this very post, before I came across the evidence under consideration.

But why should Pike come and actually clarify, seeing that he seems to think that I seek to deliberately lie every time I open my mouth?

Dave Armstrong said...

There are ways in which the discussion becomes quite simple. One bottom line question, for example, is to ask:

"Can a Catholic believe in ALL of the doctrines of the Catholic Church and be saved?"

If the answer is yes, the person cannot possibly be an anti-Catholic. If it is no, then the person is anti-Catholic, because he is saying that being a consistent Catholic is inconsistent with salvation; it makes it impossible.

Therefore, if the system precludes the possibility of salvation (assuming it is being totally adhered to) it can't possibly be a Christian system (since it is opposed to the central goal of Christianity: to be saved). Therefore, the view reduces to "Catholicism is not a Christian system," which is precisely the doctrinal definition of anti-Catholicism.

And that can be determined, pretty much, by one's answer to this single question. If the system precludes salvation, it is not Christian. Period.

What is your answer to the question, TUAD?

Dave Armstrong said...

Peter Pike needs to have an intelligent discussion about exactly what he meant. No one would be happier than I to conclude he was not anti-Catholic. But from what I know at present, there is not enough information to prove to me that he is not, and enough to establish that he is, in all likelihood.

If he refuses to clarify, that's his problem, not mine.

Yet he feels free to utter all his insults about me.

What do you think about those, TUAD?

Dave Armstrong said...

Oh, so when Jesus insults the Pharisees, that is on the same ethical plane as when they insult Him? That's an interesting proposition . . .

I answered adequately. Your language is too general and doesn't resolve anything (it only confuses things further if not carefully clarified). "Heresy" has to refer to individual doctrines.

I should add, too, that Pike's remarks that I cited have to be understood in their larger context, which was Jason Engwer's post. Engwer was arguing:

1) The Judaizers were not Christians.

2) Catholicism is analogous to the Judaizers.

3) Therefore, by analogy Catholicism is not a Christian system.

4) Both are Pelagian systems of works-salvation.

Etc.

This presupposition was assumed throughout. Pike never denied it. His answers were in perfect harmony with it. There is some slight chance that he may dissent on the major point, but it was not at all evident in the thread, if so. That's why I'm perfectly willing to hear his clarification if I have misrepresented his position at all.

Let him come here and declare that a Catholic could be saved if they believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches. That would go over real big with White and TAO and King and Swan and Hays and all the rest of the fabled, intellectually profound anti-Catholic club.

Dave Armstrong said...

The only chance of anything at all being accomplished here is if Pilgrim dialogues with TUAD and TAO (the anti-Catholic vs. the ecumenical Calvinists). I would like to see it. I would actually enjoy it quite a bit.

You guys will talk to each other normally, which is never possible between anti-Catholic Protestants and Catholics (as I know from 15 years' of sad experience).

Dave Armstrong said...

This is how conversation with anti-Catholics go: the Catholic gets into great depth and looks at the question from many different angles, while the anti-Catholic attempts a series of "gotcha" maneuvers, doesn't comprehend the Catholic answers given, and then starts repeating something mistakenly thought to be a silver bullet, like a mindless mantra or chant.

This is where we're at now with TUAD: following TAO's methodology perfectly.

Pretty soon the insults and misrepresentations of what I have stated will follow. He's already tried to make out that I am a liar, so don't anyone think more insults aren't forthcoming if I refuse to play his game.

Clones, sheep . . . mindlessness. I think it's very sad what anti-Catholicism does to a mind. It's a terrible thing to waste . . .

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Answer this question first: "So if Peter Pike were to say that when he writes "false church" he means that "Catholicism is heretical", you'd be willing to retract your accusation that he is anti-Catholic?"

and I'll be happy to answer your question, Dave.

Dave Armstrong said...

Alright. Ask that one more time, TUAD [he has now asked the same thing about ten times and I have already answered, and he won't acknowledge it], and I will delete all your comments in this thread, on the grounds of stupidity. We're at the place where I got with TAO.

You have free speech here like anyone else, but I am not required to put up with idiotic mantra-like repetitions and people acting like asses. No blog is required to do that.

Your choice.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Pilgrimsarbour: "I wouldn't say, for example, "anti-Protestant Dave Armstrong""

Dave Armstrong: "But your friends, whom you "respect" are quite content to say:

"inveterate liar Dave Armstrong"
"schizophrenic Dave Armstrong"
"narcissistic Dave Armstrong"
"vow-breaker Dave Armstrong"
"idiot and ignoramus Dave Armstrong"
"self-anointed so-called apologist Dave Armstrong"
"psychotic Dave Armstrong"
"evil Dave Armstrong"
"egomaniac Dave Armstrong"

. . . and so forth."


Dave Armstrong: "I can't retract what I don't know to be false."

Dave, I don't know if you have asked these folks who have said these things about you to retract their statements, but if you have, then it's perfectly acceptable for them to reply to you in the way that you replied to me:

"I can't retract what I don't know to be false."

And you would have to accept it.

Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house, Dave.

Dave Armstrong said...

I have decided to delete most TUAD's remarks and most of the worthless interchange on the grounds of stupidity and boorishness.

If we can get back to the intelligent discussion initiated by Pilgrimsarbour, then maybe we can accomplish something.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Dave,

O.K., back. Well, it seems like this combox has really taken off. Who knew?


But your friends, whom you "respect" are quite content to say:
"inveterate liar Dave Armstrong"
"schizophrenic Dave Armstrong"
"narcissistic Dave Armstrong"
"vow-breaker Dave Armstrong"
"idiot and ignoramus Dave Armstrong"
"self-anointed so-called apologist Dave Armstrong"
"psychotic Dave Armstrong"
"evil Dave Armstrong"
"egomaniac Dave Armstrong"
. . . and so forth. And you're concerned that I simply say they are "anti-Catholic Protestants because they deny that Catholicism is Christian?


There are a lot of folks that I respect for their knowledge, but with whom I am much less enamoured at the manner in which they conduct themselves online sometimes. I am not one who thinks that a person must either be totally respected or not. I think we can have degrees of respect for people without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

There have been times I have inquired of them both publicly and privately regarding their use of what I consider to be unhelpful inflammatory language. You know this to be true because I have talked to you privately as well about your use of what I consider to be inflammatory language. At no time am I using my sinful self as the standard, since I can be snarky too. But the justification answer I get from both sides is always the same: "They do it too, and they're even worse!" It happens every time. Your complaint is about the type of insults they use. Their complaint is about the sheer volume of insults (in their view) used by you against them. Let's face it, Dave. For sheer volume of words written, you are at the top of the heap.

I have seen from time to time certain modifications of language on both sides, and even removal of offending comments and parts of posts. There is an attempt to do better and that's always a good thing. Until, that is, some new offence occurs and the whole thing is out the window again.

I would frame this in a way which is similar to the Ground Zero Mosque debate. We have a right to say and do certain things, but is it prudent? Is there a time when our rights should give way to a greater good? If we know from experience that something is received as particularly inflammatory, shouldn't we consider using an alternate way of expressing the same idea? Could it be that Paul's admonition in 1 Cor. 8 regarding the weaker brother might be applied here as well?

Dave Armstrong said...

Meanwhile, I have found even better, undeniable proof that Pike is an anti-Catholic (or at least was for sure at the time he wrote it). Stay tuned. Shortly, I'll be adding it to the post itself.

Adomnan said...

TUAD: Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house, Dave.

Adomnan: Don't use cliches when you have nothing worthwhile to say, TUAD.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

There's no question that Blogger is having problems with posting comments. Almost everything I try to post, I guess because it's typically lengthy, says "URI Too Large." So I post double just to make sure it gets on there, then I delete the duplicate. Weird. Sometimes it never gets posted so I do it again. Then later both posts show up and again I have to delete one of them.

Dave Armstrong said...

I'm deleting TAO's and TUADs posts now (in this thread) because they are uniformly boorish and inane.

Perhaps they can do better in another thread, but my patience is exhausted in this one.

Dave Armstrong said...

When it says "URL too large" it usually posts anyway. Go check if it did before trying to post again. I go through this all the time too.

I have added new data (from the Pikester himself) proving Pike's Catholicism, to the post, as of 7:30 PM EST Tuesday.

Dave Armstrong said...

TUAD (with yawning predictability), after acting like an ass in this thread, obnoxious as a class clown, went running over to Cryablogue to whine and say his piece about my decision to delete his nonsense:

* * * * *

Dave Armstrong is just a walking self-parody.

He complains about his comments being deleted on other people's blogs, then he has the hypocritical gall to delete my comments.

If his subjective tastes don't like my comments, then he needs to consistently grant that other people may subjectively not like his comments either and that's why they get deleted.

Dave Armstrong is a hypocrite.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/yet-more-proof-that-dave-armstrong-is.html#3006412569831803839

Dave Armstrong said...

There is quality control on this blog. We actually try to engage in intelligent discourse and dialogue, as opposed to playing games with words, repeating questions like a dumb robot 12 times, when they have already been answered in great depth, engaging in childish "gotcha" techniques, murdering or ignoring definitions of words, refusing childishly to answer a very relevant question, name-calling, refusing to interact with important points, etc.

People read this blog to learn. It is an educational tool, and hopefully a place to be edified as well as educated.

If I decide that certain people are lowering the quality of the discourse here to such an extent that it will reflect very badly on my overall goals and the high quality that I seek to present here (in other words, abusing their privilege of free speech that I am happy to grant them 99.999% of the time), then I will remove those posts. Everyone does this.

Thankfully, such occasions are rare (not routine, or an outright banning, as with most of the anti-Catholic sites). The only two people in memory who had their posts removed (other than Viagra spammers), are Turretinfan (the imimitable TAO) and TUAD.

The grounds were the same in both cases: tactics such as those described above, and extreme, insufferable boorishness: essentially the tactics of the troll (universally recognized online as a bannable or deletable offense).

There is an entire blog for that sort of thing: Boors All, if someone wants to do that.

Dave Armstrong said...

More from TUAD at Cryablogue (he just doesn't get it; poor soul):

Dave WeakDeak also deleted his own comments where he falsely accused me of being "anti-Catholic".

I challenged him on it and requested that he retract his false accusation.

He refused, and threatened to delete my comments if I asked him to retract again.

I wonder if his deleting of my comments and of his false accusations is his way of issuing a retraction without losing face.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/yet-more-proof-that-dave-armstrong-is.html#8327749796816617564

Dave Armstrong said...

It's needless to say that he is revising history. Those of you who were masochistic enough to actually follow the thread know what happened; for those who didn't, TUAD is spinning.

He wouldn't answer a simple question that would have shown clearly whether he was anti-Catholic or not. That was his game. Then he kept asking me to answer his question, that I answered many times (read my comments about "heresy"). His condition was that I answer his before he would answer mine.

Childish games . . .

So now TUAD can play the game that I am given to false accusations and am now hiding the evidence. That will play well to the choir over at Hays' slander-blog.

Will these clowns ever grow up? Who has time for this? I wasted several hours today (time taken away from important work I had to do), hoping beyond hope that a Cryablogue regular like TUAD would actually engage in a normal, adult conversation. I learned my lesson.

My idealism and optimism about reason winning out in the end will be the death of me . . .

Dave Armstrong said...

I may have deleted a comment here and there, sure. All blogmasters do that if they are concerned about quality on their sites. You two are the only ones who were massively deleted.

In any event, deletions here are exceedingly / extremely rare. The point is that I am an advocate of free speech: always have been. Just because you two can't carry on a normal, civil discussion, and i refuse to allow my blog to be overrun by your puerile inanities, doesn't prove that I am delete-happy.

You can try that line if you wish, but it won't fly. People here know my long, consistent record on the matter. People know that I preserve entire posts from my opponents, in my 650 posted debates.

I post complete written debates with James White (including our famous 1995 "postal debate" that he fled from in terror at the end, and our 2000 live chat in his chat room). He never does that. He wants to hide my side of things, because he knows that is in his best interest.

The real hypocrisy lies with your anti-Catholic buddies, who systematically, cynically delete because they are afraid of Catholic replies or because they don't care about folks hearing both sides.

I've documented James Swan's particularly outrageous hypocrisy, with blatant double standards (I'm completely forbidden to comment there, now):

My Comments Deleted from the Anti-Catholic "Boors All" Blog For No Reason / Doe's Ludicrous Double Standards Regarding "Banning" Documented

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-comments-deleted-from-anti-catholic.html

Hays regularly deletes my comments, and I have noted his seering hypocrisy as well:

Anti-Catholic Steve Hays, Too, Resorts to the Good Ol' Delete Button, to Censor What I Wrote on His Blog

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/01/anti-catholic-steve-hays-too-resorts-to.html

I am banned from White's chat room (esp. if David T. King Tut is present), was kicked out of Svendsen's old discussion forum, etc.

Those things are systematic and comprehensive, whereas I have deleted extremely few posts in my 6 1/2 years blogging. They have to be either relentlessly insulting or stupid or both.

I'm usually a very patient man, but there comes a point where I get fed up with stupidity and asinine behavior and have had enough of it. I've never been one to suffer fools and folly very well.

Dave Armstrong said...

I also have documentation of the boorishness of TAO's methodology (recently parroted by TUAD), if people wonder what I am talking about when I say they are being boorish:

To Bait or Not to Debate, That is the Question (Curious Tactics of "Argument" From Anti-Catholic "Turretinfan")

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/to-bait-or-not-to-debate-that-is.html

He literally (I kid you not) repeated the same question 72 TIMES. As with TUAD recently (who was clearly copying his ridiculously silly, brain-dead tactics), I had long since answered it, several times.

Dave Armstrong said...

Note also how we are far from the topic, as usual, with TAO and TUAD whining about not having the right to act stupidly and obnoxiously on my site, rather than providing any counter-evidence that my assertions about Peter Pike's anti-Catholicism (recently bolstered by further evidence, added to the end of the post) are erroneous.

A gigantic stony silence, or insults only in reply, or topic-switching, generally indicates that one has quite sufficiently established his point. I've seen it all, folks, in my nearly 15 years online.

Pike had a big mouth when he thought he caught me in a terrible error (allegedly deleting his post). He went and put up his post "proving" that I am dishonest, and made a complete fool of himself. Now when he is caught by his own words about his own belief-system (after challenging me to do it), he has nothing to say at all.

But it's at least a halfway sensible policy to say nothing if one has nothing worthwhile to say in response. That's better than the insults. He's already tried that and it hasn't worked out very well for him, because I am always happy to broadcast those unworthy tactics even further, to illustrate how anti-Catholics so often "argue".

Dave Armstrong said...

More unyielding imbecility from TAO and TUAD; hence, more deletions.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"More unyielding imbecility from TAO and TUAD; hence, more deletions."

If we're such imbeciles, why not let our comments remain instead of deleting them? Then people can see that we are imbeciles.

But I say you're deleting our comments because they're really showing that you, Dave Armstrong, are the real imbecile. You're embarrassed and you want to hide. Hence, you delete comments and structure the thread discussion to a one-sided slant in your favor so that you don't look as bad as you would if you had just let all comments stay up.

P.S. I'd probably concede to the charge that I'm not spending my time wisely by continuing to interact with such a delusional loser like Dave Armstrong.

Dave Armstrong said...

More yawningly predictable words and actions from TUAD, posting at Cryablogue:

***

If anyone would like a copy of the post and thread that Dave WeakDeak wrote "Is Peter Pike an Anti-Catholic Presbyterian? Yes," then please e-mail me at truthunites@hotmail.com.

I'll send it to you as it was before Dave WeakDeak started deleting comments.

You can then examine the thread as it really was instead of the chopped-up, slanted version that Dave WeakDeak is peddling.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/yet-more-proof-that-dave-armstrong-is.html#8604589382028688335

I knew he would do this. Who cares? I couldn't care less if his anti-Catholic clone-buddies read the original exchange. More power to them. I have nothing to hide.

I'm simply getting rid of the "pollution" on my blog for the sake of my readers. But TUAD's friends obviously have a much lower standard of reading material, so I imagine they would rather enjoy reading his and TAO's inanities.

It has no effect on the substance of the issue here (whether Pike is an anti-Catholic). That remains uncontested.

Let TUAD document all he wants. It is of no concern whatever to me, because my goal is not to "hide" but to maintain quality control and not to alienate intelligent readers who don't come here to read the rantings of fools. He won't get that, nor will TAO, but we know that is how they will react. Everyone else WILL get it.

Dave Armstrong said...

. . . such a delusional loser like Dave Armstrong.

Oh, goody. Thanks! I'll definitely keep that up, for documentary purposes. Now we're on the way to yet another anti-Catholic publicly proclaiming that I am mentally ill. That's currently the most fashionable insult of yours truly in their ranks (though "narcissist" is very close behind).

It's talking points, you know . . . think "Democratic smear / attack ad politics" and you get the picture.

I want something really original. I'm getting tired of "psychotic" (Swan), "schizophrenic" (Hays), "you really do need to get therapy" (Pike), etc. Can't you guys come up with something original? For original, we gotta go to someone like Gene Bridges, who compared me to Castro and the dictators of Iran and N. Korea (complete with pictures).

Now there are some fun and dazzlingly original insults! I wanna see that level of creativity.

If this keeps up, I will start hitting the "spam" button when deleting TUAD's and TAO's comments, which may mean (I don't know, because it is vague in Blogger) that the Blogger spam filter will pick out all their posts in the future and delete them as spam. Thus far, I chose "delete" when taking out their worthless posts.

If that is what they desire, they can keep up the trolling idiocy.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Dave WeakDeak,

Thanks for cross-posting my comment from Triablogue.

Dave Armstrong said...

If we're such imbeciles, why not let our comments remain instead of deleting them? Then people can see that we are imbeciles.

The ones that remain are quite sufficient for that purpose, thank you.

Things will almost certainly get worse if you continue, and I will definitely leave all the juicy insults up, since that is my standard policy.

When an opponent is self-destructing you get out of the way (and help broadcast it, too).

Dave Armstrong said...

In other words, merely boring, boorish inanities are deletable as spam, but fun, entertaining insults are worthy to be maintained in this blog for important documentary purposes (showing yet again how anti-Catholics "argue"; thus helping to destroy their already dubious intellectual and ethical credibility).

Adomnan said...

Repetitious, non-substantive posts like those by TUAD and TAO merit deletion. They're spam, as you said, Dave, not because of the points they make, but because they're pointless.

Are TUAD and TAO going to tell us when precisely we can and cannot use terms like anti-Communist, anti-evolution, anti-Castro, anti-Salafi, anti-Obama, anti-Reagan or anti-this or anti-that, or when James White should be permitted to label his opponents anti-Reformed or anti-Protestant?

No? So what's the point of all this? Oh, yes, it has no point. I already said that, didn't I?

Dave Armstrong said...

There is indeed such a thing as spam! And I venture to guess that 99 out of 100 people (assuming they had no prior theological predisposition) would quickly classify TUAD's and TAO's recent rantings as exactly that.

This goes beyond even our profound theological differences, to a basic ethical issue of how to behave on a blog.

They're welcome even now to make rational arguments if they wish. But I won't tolerate garbage and nonsense polluting my blog.

I feel like Steve Ray, feeling that he has to take a shower every time he has dealings with James White.

Dave Armstrong said...

TUADF is now letting it rip over at Boors All:

"Although it pollutes the thread, Dave Armstrong's comments actually make him look bad, so I don't mind them remaining." (9-30-10)

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-martin-luther-believe-in-immaculate.html?showComment=1285875777236#c2019132523709442682

"Please leave Dave Armstrong's invective up on this blog thread.
Both TurretinFan and Tim Enloe are used to it, although quite understandably, they are annoyed by it. I say let it remain because it clearly shows what a horse's ass he is." (9-30-10)

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-martin-luther-believe-in-immaculate.html?showComment=1285881653999#c4638652855557110878

"I'll also say that I get comedic value out of Dave Armstrong's comments. They are so over the top in his rhetoric, plus the fact that he really believes in what he's writing, that I just bust out laughing at this pompous blowhard."
(9-30-10)

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-martin-luther-believe-in-immaculate.html?showComment=1285881969656#c4434301091457060934