Apologist Dave Armstrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter J.W.B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
piety101 said:
JWB
Code: 
       I was always taught that a man should face another man face to face if he has something to say. That IS being a man about it. It is easy to build a website and take pot shots at others who don't agree with you and not allow them to FULLY express their views. Dave does allow White some response, but does not allow himself to confront White publicly in a FULL discussion, face to face. If you refuse to face someone man to man, then quit running his name and religion down on your website, even if he is wrong. 

                              Both Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis take on all comers PUBLICLY and let them debate their issues fully. Even the scriptures state that if a brother takes issue with another brother, they should take it to THE CHURCH. Or publicly.
Click to expand...
Debating is a skill, and not everyone has it. It combines many things not the least of which is the aspect of public speaking which terrifies many people.

You may think it is manly to face someone in person, but you are not doing it on a stage with several hundred people in the audience and a microphone under your nose.

If you have not already done so, I encourage you to listen to the recordings of Patrick Madrid v. James White on Sola Scriptura. James White, for all his errors, is a worthy adversary, and one who should not be tangled with lightly.

Madrid, Keating, Matatics, Sippo and many, many others debated James White in the 90’s. I get the sense that the “James White” schtick has gotten old, and most professional, Catholic apologists do not put any more effort into what they view as a beaten opponent. He, of course, continues his drum-beat like the Energizer bunny.

As a side note, you might be interested to know that James White’s sister, Patty Bonds, is now a Catholic, and the story of her conversion is found in one of the *Surprised By Truth *books.

If Armstrong chooses to debate online, that’s okay…the early Church Fathers wrote treatises against the heretics of their day rather than debate in person, and we are the richer for it.

I own all of Dave’s books and heartily endorse them as well as his website.
 
Debating is a skill, and not everyone has it. It combines many things not the least of which is the aspect of public speaking which terrifies many people.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
piety101 said:
JWB
Code: 
                              Both Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis take on all comers PUBLICLY and let them debate their issues fully. Even the scriptures state that if a brother takes issue with another brother, they should take it to THE CHURCH. Or publicly.
Click to expand...
I thought Karl Keating gave up public debates. I remember reading an e-letter saying that he no longer debates. I could be wrong though.
 
I have a lot of his books (mostly on the computer). He’s quite good and an easily accessable resource for talking with non-C Christians about the faith. 🙂
 
J.W.B said:
I can agree with this. I don’t think (although I don’t know all the information on this either) the early Church had the SAME understanding of the Papacy back then as today BUT they had the BASICS of it. Also, the Church was in the early stages of it’s development.
Click to expand...
You should read James Cardinal Gibbons’ “The Faith of Our Fathers” for an excellent account of how the Bishop of Rome has always been deferred to throughout the history of the Church as the supreme bishop…in establishing councils, in settling disputes among other bishops and even countries, in sending out missionaries, etc.
 
I think hes done a lot of good. His books are decent reads, too.
 
Yes he is a good apologist.
I’ve got his “Biblical evidence for Catholicism” and “Even more Biblical evidence for Catholicism”.
And I think 95 verses that confound Protestants.
 
J.W.B said:
Yes I agree in fact he is one of my favorite apologist. Although I do not think he is underapreciated of others. He himself is normaly attacked it seems. James White thinks he’s a joke and a whinner. Ha, I visited Whites site and e-mailed him. Someone e-mailed me back though I don’t think it was James. I emailed because I was emotional on fire and upset at the ridiculous claims White made against Dave.
Click to expand...
Dave Armstrong’s website is well worth pouring over. Its like a library in itself. Dave is a fine person and a gentleman who represents the faith quite well. As for James White-- he is a pedantic wannabe with a phony -diploma mill doctorate. He needs to get a real job-- but no one will hire him.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Debating is a skill, and not everyone has it. It combines many things not the least of which is the aspect of public speaking which terrifies many people.

You may think it is manly to face someone in person, but you are not doing it on a stage with several hundred people in the audience and a microphone under your nose.

If you have not already done so, I encourage you to listen to the recordings of Patrick Madrid v. James White on Sola Scriptura. James White, for all his errors, is a worthy adversary, and one who should not be tangled with lightly.

Madrid, Keating, Matatics, Sippo and many, many others debated James White in the 90’s. I get the sense that the “James White” schtick has gotten old, and most professional, Catholic apologists do not put any more effort into what they view as a beaten opponent. He, of course, continues his drum-beat like the Energizer bunny.

As a side note, you might be interested to know that James White’s sister, Patty Bonds, is now a Catholic, and the story of her conversion is found in one of the *Surprised By Truth *books.

If Armstrong chooses to debate online, that’s okay…the early Church Fathers wrote treatises against the heretics of their day rather than debate in person, and we are the richer for it.

I own all of Dave’s books and heartily endorse them as well as his website.
Click to expand...
Where might I find the recordings of the debates of Madrid v White and Keating v White
 
piety101 said:
JWB
Both Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis take on all comers PUBLICLY and let them debate their issues fully. Even the scriptures state that if a brother takes issue with another brother, they should take it to THE CHURCH. Or publicly.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion of facing an opponent, and I agree with you on the level that the Internet can provide a level of anonymity that can be abused in debate. A type of hiding behind the keyboard…although to be honest I’ve noticed his opponents engage in this type of uncivil digression, and I’ve yet to see Armstrong lower himself to such a level.

You might want to reconsider the scripture you referred to:

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Mt 18:15-17)

The first step is to rebuke your brother “in private” and if he persists in his offense then progress to “two or three witnesses” and then “tell the church.”

Do you consider two or three witnesses a public debate? If so, than I see your point. As far as “taking it to the Church” is concerned, that refers to Church authority rather than persuading public opinion as in a debate.

I think the progression in Mt 18:15-17 emphasizes the charitable effort we’re to show. The point of debate is not to be manly or to show that I’m right and my opponent is wrong, the point is to arrive at and share the truth in a spirit of charity and humility.

The early Church Fathers often addressed differences in teaching by first writing opponents letters and only after they were summoned to a council did they debate in public. So it seems in keeping with Church tradition to deal with potentially heretical views firstly through the written word.

If your point is that the debate should be as public as possible, I’m not sure why you advocate face-to-face debate, seeing as
online debate reaches a wider audience and is therefore more public.

If one can present a more informed and prepared argument over the Internet, isn’t it better for everyone that he should engage in online debate in order for well prepared arguments for both sides to be considered? How does it serve the truth if the credibility of an argument is tainted by public speaking skills?

I don’t want to win a debate because of perfect delivery. timing, or rhetoric. I want a debate to lead to the truth. I want to hear both sides present informed and well prepared arguments and not be disuaded or persuaded by either poor public speaking skills or rhetorical charisma.

As far as apologists, what I’ve read of Armstrong is good…my favorite apologists are John Salza at www.scripturecatholic.com (although I don’t agree with him on geocentrism) C.S. Lewis, Patrick Madrid, and Peter Kreeft.

God Bless.
 
Wow, I remember this thread years ago at my friend’s house. J.W.B. hasn’t posted in years guys, I think he’s gone.
 
I think I learned more from Dave Armstrong than any other apologist on my return-journey to the Church some 10 years ago - I rate him highly. Also, the Internet is comparable to a public debate, much like an e-mail carries the same weight as a letter. It’s all communication, just a different medium.
 
J.W.B said:
How good of an apologist do you all think Dave Armstrong is?
Click to expand...
Excellent apologist! I’ve used his stuff often especially when I first started in apologetics on the internet back in the late 1990’s. I remember one time when many Catholics were debating on CARM (Matthew Slicks’ ministry) and Dave suddenly shows up and everybody quit posting to read his responses! It was so funny and the moderators came on and said for us not to quit posting just because Dave Armstrong came on! Everybody was in awe!!! Dave is an intellectual and hard for some to read but I find it refreshing.

My favoite apologist, though, is Tim Staples. I have many of his tapes from the 1990’s and beyond. He appeals to me the most because he’s what many would call a Catholic Fundamentalist. His precise answers using scripture is second to none! One time he stayed at my house while waiting for us to take him to a conference. It was great!!!
 
I like his books as references, a sort of “compendium/glossary of verses,” if you will, used to support a larger argument. His more indepth arguments are best found on his blog. He can be a bit snarky in his debates, but that’s a problem I have as well.

I like Robert Sungenis and John Salza because both their books on the Eucharist are essentially exactly the same; Salza’s is just more condensed. What I have started doing is reading Sungenis’ works for the “meat,” and then go to Salza’s smaller books as a reference, sort of like a cliff note to jog my memory.

As a sheer debater, Robert Sungenis hands down. Great poise, he doesn’t get rattled, always prepared, always meticulous. Debating, as Randy has pointed out, is truly a skill, and Robert has it.

I am leaning away from apologetics though. I find that for the truly difficult questions, apologetics simply isn’t enough. The protestants in love with their faith are intelligent and articulate, and if they dialogue with you, they want a good answer, not a clever one. I’ve seen too many people (one on this very forum) seem to view their entire faith as a collection of clever arguments, and the one with the most clever argument wins. Their faith is literally “shifting with every wind of new doctrine.”

For this reason I tend to enjoy Dr John Bergsma and Dr. Brant Pitre’s audio courses. I think theology should be the basis, with apologetics “techniques” and “concepts” used as a plug-in, rather than vice versa. Hope that makes sense.
 
Dave is a fine apologist. He has only one weakness: he can come off as very mean. But then again if you were debating “Dr” White and his illogical theorems you might be a little mean when he couldn’t see his own illogical position. However, “Dr” J. White is very easy to trap into two logically opposed positions or into obvious logical fallacies.
 
asampeck said:
I respect your opinion of facing an opponent, and I agree with you on the level that the Internet can provide a level of anonymity that can be abused in debate. A type of hiding behind the keyboard…although to be honest I’ve noticed his opponents engage in this type of uncivil digression, and I’ve yet to see Armstrong lower himself to such a level.

You might want to reconsider the scripture you referred to:

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Mt 18:15-17)

The first step is to rebuke your brother “in private” and if he persists in his offense then progress to “two or three witnesses” and then “tell the church.”

Do you consider two or three witnesses a public debate? If so, than I see your point. As far as “taking it to the Church” is concerned, that refers to Church authority rather than persuading public opinion as in a debate.

I think the progression in Mt 18:15-17 emphasizes the charitable effort we’re to show. The point of debate is not to be manly or to show that I’m right and my opponent is wrong, the point is to arrive at and share the truth in a spirit of charity and humility.

The early Church Fathers often addressed differences in teaching by first writing opponents letters and only after they were summoned to a council did they debate in public. So it seems in keeping with Church tradition to deal with potentially heretical views firstly through the written word.

If your point is that the debate should be as public as possible, I’m not sure why you advocate face-to-face debate, seeing as
online debate reaches a wider audience and is therefore more public.

If one can present a more informed and prepared argument over the Internet, isn’t it better for everyone that he should engage in online debate in order for well prepared arguments for both sides to be considered? How does it serve the truth if the credibility of an argument is tainted by public speaking skills?

I don’t want to win a debate because of perfect delivery. timing, or rhetoric. I want a debate to lead to the truth. I want to hear both sides present informed and well prepared arguments and not be disuaded or persuaded by either poor public speaking skills or rhetorical charisma.

As far as apologists, what I’ve read of Armstrong is good…my favorite apologists are John Salza at www.scripturecatholic.com (although I don’t agree with him on geocentrism) C.S. Lewis, Patrick Madrid, and Peter Kreeft.

God Bless.
Click to expand...
👍

Excellent post!

I’ll also add that protestantism is naturally better suited for verbal debate. It was essentially founded as a populist revolution. Sound bites were and remain, very effective with protestants. From its inception, it has sought to dumb down Christianity, and appeal to te masses–all these things just make it much better suited for a public debate.

In contrast, Catholicism is based on centuries of organic growth; Sacred Tradition, growing over the years. The Catholic apologist has to synthesize varoius sources, to explain Catholic positions. Historical context; writings of the Church Fathers; Episcopal synods and Councils; Papal decrees; writings of the Church Doctors; lives and teachings of the Saints; the Magesterium, the Catechism, Vat. documents, etc, etc…and of course, the Bible, on top of all of that.

You have to lay foundation for almost any Catholic point (juxtaposed agaisnt the Protestant counter part). e.g.–the sacraments; the magisterium; Cannoization; Papal infallability; praying to the Saints; Mary and Marian doctrine…

Protestants mostly only have to quote chapter and verse of the Bible, and maybe synthesize some different episodes of the bible-- to argue theirs.

That’s why (imo), in live debates, protestants tend to have a natural advantage. But slow things down, were the Truth can be properly explored–as in an internet forum, or email exchanges…and (from my experience, anyway) Catholicism enjoys a decided advantage.

b/t/w: I also like Patrick Madrid, and John Salza.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top