A response to Dave Armstrong on Pope John Paul II's Doctrine of Universal Salvation.

Dave Armstrong has written a blog entry here concerning the writings of Robert Sungenis on the actions and statements made by John Paul II. I have defended the position that Pope John Paul II taught the doctrine of universal salvation as a theological error. I wrote this piece before I found out Dave Armstrong have blocked off further comment on the matter of John Paul II's doctrine of universal salvation. Dave has the following reason for his blocking off the thread -

"I'm winding down my Internet activities for a time, Neil, so I'll have to take a pass. I just posted on my Facebook page:

=========================

I'll be taking an extended break from the Internet to work on my new book (The Quotable Newman) and do some other things. Just so folks will know why when I don't post for a while . . . thanks for reading and we'll see you later!"

I will take Dave's word for it that he has blocked off the combox and post my responses here. Nevertheless I find it very odd that he has done this due to the fact that the combox was running hot and he could have made a simple post about his future inactivity and left others to freely post. Maybe Dave is afraid he is holding to a false position on JPII and objections to his statements. We will probably never know.

The following is Dave's reasoning over objections to JPII's doctrine of universal salvation and my response to his statements -  

Dave - 1) Blessed John Paul II said things that critics claim sound universalist.

JM – No, this is not what we are saying. We merely quote JPII, who uses the phrase universal salvation and then we look at Catholic tradition and see what the words universal and salvation mean and then we ask questions about what JPII was saying. After the investigation by lay Catholics, we believe JPII has questions and concerns over his theology to answer.

Dave - 2) But St. Paul and other inspired biblical writers said very similar things that at first sight might wrongly be interpreted as universalist as well, but they weren't universalists.

JM – Actually the quotes given only applied to Gods universal salvific will or Christ redeeming all. Non of these verses mean all men go to heave, as is implied in JPII’s universal salvation. We know what all those scripture verses mean from Catholic tradition, yet this is what Dave does not take into account in his defense of JPII. So Dave, what does salvation mean in Catholic tradition?

Dave - 3) We know the Bible writers didn't hold that view because many obvious statements elsewhere (about hell and the reprobates) show that they didn't.

JM – Dave is correct to say nobody holds to universal salvation.

Dave - 4) Likewise, we know that Blessed Pope John Paul II didn't hold that view because many obvious statements elsewhere (about hell and the reprobates) -- not to mention the Catechism that he promulgated -- show that he didn't.

JM – Or alternatively JPII’s theology was contradictory. Dave’s criteria of consistency falls flat when we examine the meaning of JPII’s words in catholic tradition.

Dave - 5) Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, if one wishes to assert that Blessed Pope John Paul II was a universalist because of some statements he made, then one must also assert the same of the inspired Bible writers, who spoke in the same kind of language.

JM – Or alternatively and more believably, the bible writers were writing within a tradition and had a consistent use of language. So when they used words such as all and every, they were only doing so in relation to parts of the salvation process, such as the redemption and Gods will for men to be saved. Dave knows this of course and yet he refuses to engage the obvious consequence of this, which is because JPII used the word “salvation” he must have been referring to the entire process of salvation, which ends in glorification. As such –

JPII used universal salvation to mean all men get to heaven. This is an error.

Or JPII used universal salvation to mean something not consistent with the meaning of the word “salvation” in Catholic tradition. This is an error.

Either way, the theology of JPII is not consistent with the CCC or the scriptures or the catholic encyclopedia. You know what, this does nothing to undermine the Papal doctrine of infallibility and only shows us JPII was just like many other Popes and theologians who have erred in the past. Bid deal Dave, get over it man and admit JPII made a mistake. You don’t have to go through these intellectual contortions to demonstrate you are orthodox or love the Papacy. You simply have to be honest with yourself and say JPII was a flawed man, just like the rest of us. He did some great things, some ordinary things and some bad things. This is a case of a bad thing and we should frankly just admit it and move on for the sake of honesty.

Dave - 6) Since that is ridiculous, the contentions collapse. Things must be read in context. It is the hallmark of the heretical or otherwise disturbed, illogical, heterodox mind (the mind that isn't thinking with the Mind of the Church), to isolate words from their immediate contexts and divorce them from other statements made by the same writer.

JM – When things are read in context, JPII falls into error. There is no way out of this either other than to admit the truth about a flawed, but very good Pope. To say opponents of JPII concerning universal salvation have a heterodox mind is merely the projection of Dave’s mind. As far as I can tell from my dialogues with him on geocentrism and now the JPII incident, he is very selective in his engagement of the opposing view point. He regularly hides behind the opinions of others and rarely engages the substance of the opposing view.

Dave has simply not engaged my arguments on geocentrism or on the JPII incident, even though those arguments have been posted for some time for all to see. Dave thinks he must defend the Papacy to the death, even though a Catholic apologist is not required to do so. Maybe this is part of his apologetic apostolate. Maybe he has determined that any opposition of the Papacy, no matter how compelling, must be opposed, due to his flawed understanding of what orthodox belief is and is not. He routinely accuses opponents of being suspect of a heterodox mentality, when he does not have the authority or the arguments to back up his claims. This is yet further evidence against his unbalanced mindset concerning the criteria for orthodoxy and herodoxy.

What the heck, I could place this silly game and accuse Dave of being a quasi Protestant, because in his defense, he refuses to go to tradition to establish the meaning of the words “universal’ and “salvation”, therefore it is he who has heterodox tendencies. How do you feel now Dave? Someone has seen your game for what it is and called you out on it. How about you do the Catholic and orthodox thing and –

1. Admit Pope can and have erred.

2. JPII was a Pope and therefore he could have erred.

3. A defense of statements made by JPII must include a definition of the words “universal” and “salvation”, as determined from Catholic tradition.

4. When the words “universal” and “salvation” are defined from Catholic tradition, then –

4a. JPII used “universal salvation” to mean all men get to heaven. This is an error.

4b. Or JPII used universal salvation to mean something not consistent with the meaning of the word “salvation” in Catholic tradition. This is an error.

5. Either way, the papal definition of infallibility is not affected and even though JPII erred.

This is the orthodox position and it is consistent with Papal history, tradition, scripture and human nature.

------------------------------------------------

Dave has added an edited version of my comments above, here. I have now responded to his comments as given below -

Dave - I just deleted all of johnmartin's comments from this thread (some 33 or so) because he questioned why I shut down the comments.

JM – I sent that post to Dave’s facebook account. The reasons given were solidly based upon what Dave had placed in his combox. He could have left the combox open, but decided to close it down

Dave - It's the same old routine with jm.

JM – More likely Dave has a very weak argument to support his case, so he attacks the person of the opponent.

Dave - Before it was the issue of geocentrism.

JM- Geocentrism is a hot topic Dave doesn’t want to have anything to do with, even though his champion David Palm has been thoroughly answered several times by me and Rick Delano. Dave won’t even bother reading Roberts book, Galileo Was Wrong, even though Roberts’s apologetic is possibly one of the most compelling arguments for the Catholic Church written in recent times.

Dave - He insists on coming into venues where he knows his view is considered fringe and kooky, and blasting comboxes with trillions of words.

JM – Daves at his worn out tricks again.  More ad hominems and exaggerations because his arguments are weak. Is this the method to be used by a man of God, or otherwise . . . hmm . . . it makes me wonder . . . it really does.

Dave - He insults everyone present,  . . .

JM – Actually Rick Delano complemented me in the geocentrism combox discussion, where I behaved very well whilst under fire from all directions. Furthermore, my behavior in this combox was quite good as well. I don’t remember attacking anyone personally at all. If I did, it was probably because I was responding to a personal attack from others (perhaps even Dave himself).

Dave - not sparing even the blogmaster who nevertheless kindly allows his comments.

JM – Dave is just another poster in the combox and deserves no special attention. In fact, when he attacks other Catholics, it is he who should take a leaf from his own moral book and stop the ad hominems.

Dave - He has been warned in the past,

JM – Dave’s warnings were based upon Dave’s inventions/projections.

Dave . . . and he was warned in this thread that my patience with his antics was wearing thin.

JM-  Dave’s inventing again. This is yet another reasons I believe Dave is running from the truth. Dave has deleted all my posts and now as blogmaster, he has used his power to make unsubstantiated allegations about me.

Dave - Hence I wrote on April 29th:

"In the past it has come to a place where I ask him to cease and desist, or else I will delete all his posts. That time is coming very soon."

JM – And from this where can it be inferred that Dave has asked me to stop posting here? Nowhere of course, so this is yet another reason to conclude Dave is not telling the truth about me or JPII’s novel theological teachings.

Dave - He generally acts like a boor and an ass.

JM – Slander is a sin Dave and therefore Dave has just sinned.

Dave  - In this instance his goal is lying about Blessed Pope John Paul II.

JM- Dave has just made another false statement about me concerning JPII. I have not lied about JPII. I have merely substantially maintained the position that JPII taught theological error on universal salvation.

Dave - I was content to let him talk, but he has taken it too far now with the following remarks on his own blog:

JM – Dave paints himself as the moral hero again, even though he has just slandered me, made ad hominem statements against me, deleted all my posts and made other false statements about the content of my posts. Dave’s apologetic ministry has turned in on itself here. It’s a shame to see a man of his intellectual caliber making such blatantly false statements and using such a foolish and superficial methodology to defend JPII’s theological error.

If Dave thought about this situation with a sense of history he would have noted there have been others who have been declared blessed (say Duns Scotus for example), even though they held to positions not held by others in the church. Therefore Dave does not need to defend the position that JPII did not err theologically and therefore he can be a candidate for beatification.

Really the theological error of JPII on universal salvation is quite literally a storm in a tea cup. He erred, so lets acknowledge it and move onto something else.

Dave – [quoting JM] - I wrote this piece before I found out Dave Armstrong have blocked off further comment on the matter of John Paul II's doctrine of universal salvation. Dave has the following reason for his blocking off the thread -

"I'm winding down my Internet activities for a time, Neil, so I'll have to take a pass. I just posted on my Facebook page:

=========================

JM - I'll be taking an extended break from the Internet to work on my new book (The Quotable Newman) and do some other things. Just so folks will know why when I don't post for a while . . . thanks for reading and we'll see you later!"

I will take Dave's word for it that he has blocked off the combox and post my responses here. Nevertheless I find it very odd that he has done this due to the fact that the combox was running hot and he could have made a simple post about his future inactivity and left others to freely post. Maybe Dave is afraid he is holding to a false position on JPII and objections to his statements. We will probably never know.

Dave - It's called a "vacation", you asinine nitwit! I live on the Internet 49 weeks of the year, day and night (most of the time doing work for which I am not directly paid anything at all), but if I dare take any time off, someone like you will be sure to question my motivation, as if I don't need rest and relaxation once a year like anyone else does.

JM – This is a very poor excuse Dave, simply because you did not state anything about a vacation in your recent combox entries. How can I take you seriously on this matter of JPII when you –

1.         Call me names after inventing a new reason for blocking off the combox.

2.         Delete all my posts even though those posts are full of references to church documents and are largely on topic.

3.         You did not engage the substance of my arguments.

4.         You agreed with the arguments of others, even though the substance of the relevant arguments was answered.

Dave - Knowing your tendency to try to take over comboxes,

JM – This only refers to two combox dialogues concerning the matter of geocentrism. There have been other combox discussions which I did not take over, as you state here. Therefore Dave’s statement is only a half truth.

Dave - I knew that it was necessary to shut off the comments. Period. End of story.

JM – I beg to differ. There was plenty of dialogue on which I took little no part at all. The bulk of the dialogue was completed by others and therefore to claim I was going to take over the combox, without any valid prior reasons on your part, is most likely another Dave Armstrong invention.

Dave - That's why I made the same announcement on my Facebook page, where this discussion wasn't even taking place at all.

JM – I was simply sending you a message to complete the combox dialogue. As the combox was closed down, I had little alternative other than to send you a message on face book. What’s the problem with that Dave? You seem very sensitive to someone sending you a message. This seems very odd if you are convinced of your position. In fact it is expected if you are not convinced of your position and that lack of candor on your behalf is matched by your inability to match it with others who disagree with you over the matter of JPII theological error of universal salvation.

Dave - I'm not scared of you (what a joke!), or worried about my own position.

JM – If you were not scared of me then you would not have closed down the combox and made allegations about me without directly answering my counter arguments. As the counter arguments have not been answered and you have also deleted part of the message which you posted in the combox recently, then I can only conclude you have been soundly defeated and you are running scared.

JPII is not the Pope that you possibly think he is. JPII was not theologically correct all the time and he was definitely not theologically correct on the matter of universal salvation, as you think he was. JPII’s statements on universal salvation have been exposed, discussed and the arguments for JPII’s statements have been rebutted. Furthermore, the counter arguments in support of JPII have not addressed the substance of the arguments made against JPII. This is very telling against JPII.

Dave - I don't waste time interacting with fools and blowhards.

JM – When Dave is outgunned, he resorts to ad hominems. This is yet further powerful evidence that he has lost the day. Poor Dave can’t take a trick when it comes to JPII and universal salvation.

Dave - That is the sole reason I don't interact with you.

JM – Well Dave, David Palms arguments on geocentrism have been answered quite thoroughly and he hasn’t bothered to make a reply. Now the objections to JPII’s teaching on universal salvation have not been answered either. So if you cannot answer the positions taken by geocentrists and those who call out JPII for theological error, then you are definitely something far less than a fool and a blowhard. These are the terms you use for men such as me, who have the intestinal fortitude to ask questions about the modern church and its poor behavior and novel teachings. Personally, I do this as a matter of concern for the health of the church and I do it without the need to call anyone names or project Sede vacantist or ultamontanist into anyone. You on the other hand have different criteria you invent. You try to take the moral high ground, paint the opposition out to be fools and then ignore the substance of the arguments made. This is simply not a sound methodology and speaks volumes for a lack of intellectual integrity on your behalf.

Dave - But I commend the patience of those who do interact with you (someone has to).

JM – Evidently Dave thinks only supermen dialogue with because I’m a fool and what was it again . . .

Dave - [continued] johnmartin goes on in his ridiculous post:

JM – I note here an intentional editing out of the substance of my argument against JPII. This is clear evidence Dave is not willing to engage in counter arguments made in the combox against JPII’s novel teaching on universal salvation.

Dave – [quoting JM] "get over it man and admit JPII made a mistake. You don’t have to go through these intellectual contortions to demonstrate you are orthodox or love the Papacy. You . . .

What will I do NOW? I've been totally exposed as a dishonest (and heterodox) fraud.

JM – read again Dave. I didn’t call you heterodox. I was merely using your method (which is a silly and superficial game of yours) to arrive at the conclusion that you too would be heterodox, if I used the same methodology you use against others.

Dave - Right.

JM – Right according to your silly methodology. You see the absurdity in the conclusion, but fail to see the absurdity is directed to highlight the absurdity in the method you apply to others.

Dave - Next time learn when you have said enough and move on with grace.

JM – Hmmm . . . why would I want to have an in depth dialogue with Armstrong, who for the second time has deleted all my posts? Time will tell concerning future dialogues.

Dave -  Instead you had to accuse me of running and trying to hide, when there wasn't an ounce of truth in that.

JM – I’ve shown solid reasons why you are running and hiding. Here’s another one – you have already deleted my posts, including the substance of the arguments against JPII in my recent post sent to your facebook account, because you know JPII has erred theologically. You say otherwise, based upon invented reasons that are not relevant to the current discussion.

Dave - You can always go over to your pal Sungenis' site. Go preach over there.

JM – You can always change your method and think before you make absurd and illogical statements about your fellow Catholics. Some of your statements are so outrageously false (and not just on this blog entry either!), they cast doubt on your moral integrity.

I will be posting this and all my recent posts on my blog when time permits.