130 search results for: Dave Armstrong

I was not blogging when Scott Hahn’s Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God came out. I did, however devote two Dividing Line broadcasts to a review of it. The book set new “groan” records for its horrible, never-ending, “please, have mercy, it stopped being funny four chapters ago” use of pun-filled subtitles. It truly

As I noted in Part I, Dave Armstrong’s attempt to substantiate the sinlessness of Mary is one of the longest sections in his book. We have noted that he specifically claims to be offering sound exegesis and analysis of Luke 1:28, but so far, we have not found his comments to live up to the claims he makes for them.

Interestingly, though I presented these passages and this objection in the same section from which Dave Armstrong quoted, he did not address them. He did, however, make one of the most common errors one encounters in literature such as this: the “let’s look at a really basic definition in a Greek grammar and hope it applies to our particular text”

Now, all of this, up to this point, has simply been to work through the first of two issues I myself raised regarding what a serious Roman Catholic would have to explain to make a serious Protestant feel at all “confounded” at Luke 1:28. If kecaritwme,nh is telling us that Mary was sinless due to the possession of a perfection

As you can see, I’m investing some time in properly working through the published comments of Dave Armstrong. Two quick notes:      1) The Greek font I generally use is from BibleWorks, and is available for download and installation here (this includes the Hebrew font as well). In a recent article I used the Mounce font, which does not seem to

We know, from examining Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses that he has one of my books, and has looked at a portion of it, though, seemingly, not all of it (even regarding the passages that are directly relevant to his own claims and work, which I am not alone in finding quite odd). And we know that at least a

Dave Armstrong is responding on his blog, but I confess, it seems to be pretty difficult to follow where he’s going. Here’s how today’s retort, which in its title speaks of “ad hominem,” starts. My words are in blue: DA has replied to my first comments on his book . They were…predictable. Armstrong says his book is

Two passages are cited by Armstrong under the subtitle of “Carrying Christ’s Afflictions in our Bodies,” 2 Cor. 4:10 and Col. 1:24. Colossians 1:24 is very commonly cited by RC theologians and apologists in reference to the doctrine of penance, purgatory, and indulgences, all related to the idea that our sufferings can be meritorious (when they meet certain conditions) and

Once again, in citing Phil. 3:10 and Rom. 8:17, Armstrong does not consider it necessary to actually handle the verses, establish context, meaning, anything exegetical. They are simply cited, and then the assumption is made that Protestants have no place in their theology for “suffering.” And his source for this (if you happen to be widely read in meaningful Protestant

Dave Armstrong lists four verses that “confound Protestants” under the subtitle of “The Binding Authority of Tradition, According to St. Paul,” beginning on page 37 of The Catholic Verses. They are: 1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 1 Thessalonians 2:13

I sometimes feel sorry for ancient artists. Their work gets plastered all across the covers of modern books, but they never get a dime for their efforts. It’s a shame. That odd observation aside, I picked up a copy of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Sophia Institute Press, 2004, 235 pp.), which sports said

And Dave Armstrong pops up again and throws me into the mix of people who turn off the comments sections of their blogs to hide from refutation. Uh, earth to DA…news flash, buddy…I haven’t graduated to RSS capable blogging. This is a plain ol’ html file, nothing more. Someday I may get a real blog, but for the moment, this

Presbyterian scholar and professor at Montreat College Paul Owen continues bearing false witness in his public writings. After writing to Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong that he would indeed be able to worship alongside a Roman Catholic “much more easily than with James White or David King” (Owen has said before he would rather see someone in a Catholic Church

In the comments section on l0g0s’ blog a number of folks (including Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong) have taken him to task for asserting the citations offered above are “out of context.” l0g0s has been utterly unable to back up his claims outside of saying Bahnsen and I would not have agreed on other subjects, a glowing canard to anyone

For some reason l0g0s hopped back on the “rip and shred on Reformed folks” bandwagon today (I haven’t the foggiest what prompted it this time—perhaps the fractal below looks too…Calvinistic or something? Maybe it is “promote your local Anglican Day”?). In any case, he launched off:  The reason I ask is because C.S. Lewis–that master writer and theologian among the

Dave Armstrong is trumpeting NT Wright and Andrew Sandlin on his blog today. Shouldn’t surprise anyone. Note these two statements from Wright and Sandlin and ponder them well:  They need not know “theology” to be saved; they do need to know that Jesus and His redemptive work is their only hope and that in trusting Him, they are abandoning themselves

At first I didn’t even see it.  I saw a reference to it on Dave Armstrong’s blog, of all places.  Good ol’ Alexander the Coppersmith (AtC), who has the amazing ability of joining hands with anyone, no matter what their beliefs, as long as it means he can get into print insulting me, had posted on l0g0s’ blog regarding the

Did you know that Terminal 7 at JFK Airport is closed if you arrive at 2:25am? Yes indeedy. The things you learn when you travel. And did you know you have to get on that train thing and go to Terminal 4 to hang around at that time in the morning? And that they had Attila the Hun design the

After responding to Jimmy Akin’s blog note, I took a moment to read the comments attached to it. I found them fascinating. Some were your standard “ra-ra” kind of comments from folks who obviously are not big on fairly evaluating apologetic material and logical argumentation. One fellow, Brad Haas, was all excited about Dave Armstrong’s “work.” Sorry, but anyone who

Dave Armstrong wrote a nearly 4200 word “response” to Angel’s cartoon, and, of course, it is all my fault. See, Wilson was right: it doesn’t matter what you say. UPDATE: Dave then ignored copyright laws, demonstrated he has no one around him who can do original work, took the caricature below, and proved he is beyond all rational discourse yet

Proving that reasoning and refutation are but minor irritations, Dave Armstrong has reposted his mauled graphic of me. However, his rather less than talented artist removed the blood from my face this time (as I said, I’m so thankful and feel so much better now). And he has chosen, in his own inimitable style to post it on one of

It has seemed of late that TGE is back into the “shoot at my former comrades-in-arms” mode (he goes through phases like that), despite his stated intention, having “won” the last round, to move on to higher ground. Seems someone is still rather…agitated. Regular listeners to the DL and readers of this blog know that I often have rather strong

Over the past number of months we have received a number of requests for information concerning the claims of Mrs. Patty Bonds, my older sister.  Though I have not seen Mrs. Bonds for a number of years, and have had no serious interaction with her in half a dozen years, her recent decision to join the Roman Catholic Church has

If you read only the literature of Roman Catholic apologetics organizations, you’d swear there wasn’t a Protestant on the earth who had ever cracked the binding of a Bible, or had ever even known someone named Cyprian even existed, let alone had a battle royal with Stephen back in the third century. Over the past few years I have had

Randy wrote: Regarding today’s Dividing Line, you *do* use “Anti-Calvinist” quite a bit, along with “Anti-Trinitarian,” and “Anti-Reformed” rather than calling them by their “postive” terms. So, stay consistent as to whether people should be defined by what they are positively (Arminian, Oneness believers) or whether it’s fair game for folks to call each other Anti- whatever. Because, you do

Roman Catholic apologetics has come a long way. In the written disputes and published propaganda between sixteenth-century Protestants and Roman Catholics, the mass-marketing victory clearly lay in the hands of Rome’s detractors. Protestants out-published Rome’s apologists winning the popular opinion. Roman Catholic works were unlikely to sell, and therefore not sought out by printers. Rome exasperated the loss by not