130 search results for: Dave Armstrong

   When I checked on the link I have used a number of times recently for my Nicea article in the CRI Journal of July/August, 1997, I discovered it had gone dead. So I contacted CRI, and they contacted their webfolks who are busy migrating their website to a new format. They jumped my article to the head of the line

Someone came into channel asking about Ignatius this morning and in the process dropped the URL to another thread on the Catholic Answers Forums about yours truly, and once again I sit here in utter disbelief at the double standards that people will use without blinking an eye as long as it is in the service of Mother Church (and

I was just writing a note to my friend Steve Camp when I saw an article pop up on Dave Armstrong’s blog. He was talking about Dobson appearing on Hannity & Colmes and being asked about Al Mohler’s 2000 statement about Rome being a false church (amen!) with a false gospel (amen again). (Just in case you haven’t noticed, that

Dave Armstrong has it right: Dr. Paul Owen of Montreat College is, in fact, one of the best friends the Roman Catholic apologetics community has ever come across. It is always good to have folks “inside” the other camp to come to your aid, sort of like a fifth column (“men will arise from your own ranks“). The tactic is

Sometimes, you just have to shake your head. Remember Doug C. from Houston, who launched into me on Steve Ray’s board? Here’s the original, here’s my reply to his letter, also posted on Ray’s board. Now, if you haven’t ever ventured into Steve Ray’s web-board, let’s just say it is well known for two things: 1) hotheads, 2) massive volume.

…at least from an “apologist.” This just appeared on Dave Armstrong’s blog. You remember Dave Armstrong. Yes, he’s the fellow who kept stealing Angel’s artwork, having a four-year old butcher it, and posting it on his blog. Same fellow who melted down into a puddle of apologetic goo when I finally invested the time to start working through his book,

Dave Armstrong “shows his cards” so to speak, and in so doing reveals the true motivation behind his use of Matthew 23, in these words: Thirdly, because they had the authority and no indication is given that Jesus thought they had it only when simply reading Scripture, it would follow that Christians were, therefore, bound to elements of Pharisaical teaching

We continue reviewing Dave Armstrong’s comments on Matthew 23. He continues with a citation from my book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, p. 101, on p. 47 of The Catholic Verses. However, he does not provide some key elements of the material he is citing, so I will provide the paragraph, but will bold what was skipped, or not included, in

In the previous installment of this series I provided an introduction and the comments I made in The Roman Catholic Controversy regarding the use of Matthew 23:1-3 by Roman Catholic apologists. Let’s make sure we understand what is required of the Roman Catholic apologist in order to substantiate their claims. First, there needs to be an identifiable oral tradition regarding

This will be my final installment in response to Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses. It is not that there are not many more passages that could be addressed, it is just that there is so very little actual exegesis in the book that the real essence of its self-enunciated claim to provide a defense of the Roman Catholic exegesis of

I continue reviewing the attempted defense of the modern usage of Isaiah 22:20-22 by Roman Catholic apologists, responding to Mark Bonocore. In our previous installments we have examined Bonocore’s use of patristic sources in reference to Irenaeus and John Cassian. We continue with his presentation: I believe the reason we don’t see Isaiah 22 used more extensively is that it’s

I return now to my response to the articles by Mark Bonocore, noted in the blog responses on Dave Armstrong’s page. The article that was sited was on Apolonio Latar’s site (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num18.htm). But since it had been a very long time since I had taken the time to track down what Mark Bonocore was up to, I did a little

   HUMOR ALERT! HUMOR ALERT! Granite-faced Calvinists and frigid cold Catholics need not continue reading, or even look! As some of you know, Dave Armstrong at first tried to reply, somewhat, to my review of his book, The Catholic Verses. Then he pulled the plug on responding to “anti-Catholics,” again, as he has done in the past, as Eric Svendsen so

Now, having reviewed the context of Irenaeus’ teaching about the age of Jesus at his death, we turn to the calm, kind, rational commentary offered by Mark Bonocore on the same issue, found here. Let’s look at his comments. After I had noted very briefly what I explained more fully above, Bonocore writes, Well, you’re proving that you are not

Jonathan Prejean has offered some comments on the first sections of my interaction with Dave Armstrong. Since they are brief, I will be brief in response. As he quotes me extensively, I will put my original words in blue, his replies in red, my replies are in purple. Intro Now, of course, DA will respond with text files (liberally salted

I never dreamed just how appropriate the terminology I chose was. For a number of years I had experienced the constant hatred and attacks of Paul Owen, first when he was a student in seminary, then when we was off in Scotland working on his doctorate, and now that he has returned and his spreading his unique variety of theology

The RC pep rally and general back-slapping rave going on at DA’s blog has continued unabated for a few days now, though I think eventually even these folks will get tired of repeating the same mantras over and over again. “Wow, that James White, we sure have refuted him, haven’t we!” “Yeah, sure did! Wow, he’s as dumb as a

      Mr. Armstrong has just recently noted, in reference to myself and others, Carry on, fools . . . we’re all watching, and it is high entertainment, believe me. You think you will get me to change my mind by these childish tactics and colossal errors of fact? You go right ahead. I’m documenting every vacuous, vapid insult and dumb

It was the late 1980s. Remember them? Yes, well, things were developing in the Roman Catholic apologetics arena. Benny Diaz, a former Roman Catholic, and one who was working with us in reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses, kept pushing me to study the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. He introduced me to Catholic Answers and the materials they were producing.