Outside the Church there is no salvation.
Lactantius (c.250 – c.325) says:
"...But some, enticed by the prediction of false prophets, concerning whom both the true prophets and he himself had foretold, fell away from the knowledge of God, and left the true tradition. But all of these, ensnared by frauds of demons, which they ought to have foreseen and guarded against, by their carelessness lost the name and worship of God. For when they are called Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or Arians, or by any other name, they have ceased to be Christians, who have lost the name of Christ, and assumed human and external names. Therefore it is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship.This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the faith, this is the temple of God; into which if any one shall not enter, or from which if any shall go out, he is estranged from the hope of life and eternal salvation. No one ought to flatter himself with persevering strife. For the contest is respecting life and salvation, which, unless it is carefully and diligently kept in view, will be lost and extinguished. But, however, because all the separate assemblies of heretics call themselves Christians in preference to others, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, it must be known that the true Catholic Church is that in which there is confession and repentance, which treats in a wholesome manner the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is liable."
Lactantius, (c.250 – c.325)
Divine Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 30
Just saw your posts on beggars all. Word of advice do not waste you time defending yourself in places were they are not interested in mutual dialogue, but trading insults. Its not worth it
ReplyDeleteYeah, I keep learning that lesson the hard way. But this post was specifically directed at me, and my main letter of explaination to my former church. I wanted to defend myself for posterity, not to convince AoMin appologists or beggers all readers.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, defending myself against those kinds of folks further steels my resolve to fight for the faith. Perhaps that is twisted.
Thank you much for your concern though. Truly appreciate it.
I second Tap's suggestion. The BA crowd is pathologically Anti-Catholic. However, you were right in going on BA to defend yourself from their accusations. But as Tap pointed out, they are not interested in a two way conversation with anyone outside the Reformed orbit. They viciously attack anyone who will not bow the knee to Calvin or Luther. Stay aways from them or you'll end up making a fool out of yourself like Dave Armstrong has done over the years. He has gotten into so many fights with the BA crowd, he has become a mirror image of those people. He posts belittling pictures of folks like Swan, and he carps that the BA'ers will critique his writings without mentioning his name!
ReplyDeleteThank you scotju. Wise advise. I agree about Armstrong, I love most of his work, and have spent alot of time on his site. But I started noticing lots of extended explainations of tit-for-tat conversations with Reformed apologists. It just seemed unbecomming or something... even though Dave Armstrong seemed to be on the "right" side of things to me.
ReplyDeleteAgain guys, I truly appreciate your advice.
Fascinating discussion. Scotju is running me down behind my back as usual (it is a frequent thing for him), while simultaneously being halfway civil for a change on my blog.
ReplyDeleteI don't expect everyone to understand the rationale for what I do, but we all gotta do what we gotta do, don't we?
Dave Armstrong,
ReplyDeleteKeep up your good work. There is a fine line between answering a fool to show him his folly, or answering him and becomming like him. We all tread that line differently, but it must be tread in apologetics.
Of course it is always easier to see where OTHER people fail in this for some reason.
Keep up the good work, I think you tread the line just fine. As you said, we all have to do this in our own way. After any petty critiques I might have, I want you to know you do great work. I cant tell you how many times your site came up in various google searches when I was investigating Catholicism as a Protestant. Keep it up brother.
Fair enough, David. Thanks for the disclaimer, and you keep up the good work, too.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to keep things in proper perspective. The illustrious blogmaster of Boors All wrote one post about you, and you now know what that is like (including what it is like to attempt to reason with the folks on his site): to be the subject of all sorts of calumnies and distortions.
He has, through the years, literally written 120-130 or so posts about me, with every conceivable, imaginable slander, including that I am a psychotic (seriously stated many times in many ways).
And so I responded to many of these charges. It's no fun to be repeatedly lied about and slandered in public (Herman Cain understands this very well). Imagine his treatment of you multiplied by over 100 times, and over the span of nine years, and you will understand why I tried many times to reason with him on his blog: all to no avail.
I'm such an idealist about the persuasive power of reason and fact, that I thought (hoped beyond hope) that it could even win over the people there. Wrong!
scotju doesn't understand this? He hasn't walked in my shoes. And he never will. His experience is not my own. He has no idea what it is like.
I dealt with anti-Catholics in theological debates from 1990 to 2007. In that year I decided to cease debating theology with them, because seven anti-Catholics (including the inimitable blogmaster of Boors All) all refused to have a live chat about the definition of Christianity. That was the final straw. I gave them that last chance to man up and defend their view. Once they refused, I was done with them for good, in terms of an actual debate on theology.
I only document some of their nonsense now and then. But what I have done in the past, while not "perfect" by a long shot, has some lasting value, I think. All that work was not in vain, so it remains on my site (though I may be removing a certain portion: hint hint).
I've received many letters telling me that my interactions and critiques (esp. with James White) helped folks to become Catholics and to see the faulty thinking in anti-Catholicism.
I agree that there are lots of fine lines we apologists must tread, in prudence, and as a matter of stewardship and responsibility.
We all have to decide how to deal with anti-Catholics and all that goes along with that. I've tried to reach a balance, by no longer debating them (insofar as those efforts can be called a "debate" at all), but on the other hand, retaining old debates I have had with them, for what I think is their educational value.
I also still deal with historical anti-Catholics, like Calvin, Luther (books devoted to each of them), Chemnitz, and William Whitaker (recent 18-part critique of his defense of sola Scriptura). In that way, the false and dangerous ideas can be dealt with, minus the endurance of personal nonsense and attacks that are inevitable when critiquing living anti-Catholics.
Dave, I'm sorry if you think I was talking behind your back. I commented on this blog, not to talk behind your back, but to comment on the foolishness of constantely interacting and obsessing with the BA crowd. You may not debate them anymore, but about once a month, you have some sort of rant about them. Frankly, this is not apologetics, this is an extended grudge match. They don't even mention your name over there anymore, yet you're constantely obsessing about them to the point were it will and can become mentally and spiritually unhealthy. I've seen behaviour like this before, and the person who continues in this type of behavior always ends up a spirital and moral shipwreck if he doesn't wake up in time. I do hope you can snap out of it before you run aground. You have a lot to offer the Catholic community, but if you persist in this foolishness, you will ruin your effectiveness as an apologist.
ReplyDeleteDave, I'm sorry if you think I was talking behind your back. I commented on this blog, not to talk behind your back, but to comment on the foolishness of constantely interacting and obsessing with the BA crowd. You may not debate them anymore, but about once a month, you have some sort of rant about them. Frankly, this is not apologetics, this is an extended grudge match. They don't even mention your name over there anymore, yet you're constantely obsessing about them to the point were it will and can become mentally and spiritually unhealthy. I've seen behaviour like this before, and the person who continues in this type of behavior always ends up a spirital and moral shipwreck if he doesn't wake up in time. I do hope you can snap out of it before you run aground. You have a lot to offer the Catholic community, but if you persist in this foolishness, you will ruin your effectiveness as an apologist.
ReplyDelete