NTRMin Discussion Forum
    > The Areopagus
        > Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong
New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Subject Author
Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong NTRMin
Dave Armstring on Wed. May 4. 12:08am:
Quote:
I oppose ad hominem "argumentation" and delving into folks' motives and judging their hearts, wherever it occurs. That's not a theological issue; it's a matter of elementary Christian charity and ethics. So if James White or anyone else is attacked in this fashion (let alone a whole group of Christians), then it is wrong, and we ought to speak out against it with one voice. I have consistently done so.

Let's see . . .

Dave Armstrong two days earlier on Mon. May 2. 10:33pm (regarding the opening of the comments section of my blog):
Quote:
Almost inevitably, more high comedy is available in comments on his latest post

My posts which caused Eric the Yellow to shut down his comments were strictly on the subject.

But that is a disagreement, you see, and disagreements expressed with reasoned force are what Eric flees from, as a polar bear flees from the Equator

I thought good ole evangelicals didn't bet (or play rock music, for that matter)? Is this the Svendsenian equivalent of Bingo Night at NTRMin?

But I'll have fun continuing to chronicle Eric's foibles on my own blog.

What'll be next? James White allowing comments, too??????? William Webster actually replying to one of the two lengthy critiques of mine showing the utter bankruptcy of his understanding of Catholic Church teaching and development of doctrine??????

ROFL! This guy is too much! Does he try to be this funny or does it just come naturally? I don't think he could write a better self-parody of himself than how he seemingly acts, in all seriousness. Man! Here's Svendsen's latest, on his blog. Be sure not to have any liquid in your mouth when you read it. :-)


Dave Armstrong on Apr 28. Thurs. 5:31am
Quote:
Eric and his anti-Catholic cronies preach misinformation and disinformation, and unnecessarily, sinfully fuel divisions and suspicions.

One expects Svendsen et al to get it wrong about Catholicism, but when he can't even refrain from lying about and slandering fellow Protestants

then he has clearly crossed into territory far more absurd and ludicrous than he has already been inhabiting, lo these many years.

I don't believe I will see this sheer folly bested in my lifetime. But I've been surprised before

Be sure to read it again, if you read it before 9:00 EST on Friday night (much more Svendsen documentation and idiotic judgmental comment).

Svendsen is already threatening to surpass his crazy zaniness of the post above.

But as we see, Eric is willing to be every bit as ridiculous as those he has so vehemently criticized.

What will this clown do next? He has Billy Graham and Dr. Dobson practically damned, along with Pope John Paul II . . . is there no END to his tragi-comic folly?

Dave Armstrong recently stated the following against my charge that he is a chronic oath-breaker:
Quote:
I didn't say I wouldn't "interact" with anti-Catholics; I have decided not to attempt dialogue with them

Here's what DA actually said on March 14, 2001:
Quote:
I, DAVE ARMSTRONG, DO HEREBY RESOLVE TO CEASE AND DESIST EVEN FROM *MENTION* OF DR. JAMES WHITE AND TIM ENLOE (and strongly urge other Catholics to do the same)

So starting immediately, I resolve to neither interact with, nor to even mention at all, James White and Tim Enloe. They don't deserve any further attention or notoriety. I urge all other Catholics and especially Catholic apologists to do the same (though of course I have no real authority to compel anyone to do anything; I can only suggest). This is consistent with many biblical injunctions urging us to avoid those who cause divisions, and slanderers, and to avoid "senseless, stupid controversies," "vain conversation," etc.

If you think I *can't* keep this resolve because of the supposed "obsession" you think I have, then watch me. You will be in for a big surprise.

It's time for me to move on. I no longer have the *patience* for this sort of thing

After years of violating this oath, here is what DA wrote for for his 2005 "resolution":
Quote:
Per my resolution, I shall merely chronicle what he said and very briefly document the absolute falsehoods (in brackets]. This is my last post on any of this ridiculous "feeding frenzy" from our anti-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. It's time to move on to legitimate apologetics.

I've had enough. My patience is exhausted. Life is too short to waste any more of my time with nonsense such as this.

I will continue to simply [sic] document and record the insults of anti-Catholics towards me (at the end of this paper), as I learn of them.

So I simply document their insults, and let people decide for themselves if such material is fitting (and ethical) in the midst of intelligent discourse.

Of course, the rest is history. You can read the rest of DA's "non responses" to his "anti-catholic" enemies in the following links:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Link 5

In addition, the Triablogue site has pinned DA's shoulders to the carpet on the untenability of his views, and DA has backed off like . . . well, shall we say like "Dave the Yellow"?

In addition, while I don't normally endorse anonymous blogs, the parady at the "I'm a Moron, But I Love Myself" blog captures the DA phenomenon exactly :)

ezOP
Posts: 1878
5/4/05 4:41 am
Reply
Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong KLPJR
Eric,

You've proved the old saying to be so true: "Just give them enough rope..." and they'll do it themselves!

Blessings,

Ken

adelphoi
Posts: 92
5/4/05 1:14 pm
Reply
Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong Hilasterion
No one would ever believe that those posts in the "I'm a moron..." blog are the work of the real Dave Armstrong. The reason? The entries are too short. Evberyone knows DA is far more verbose in his self-congratulatory speech than that.

"My food is to do the will of Him who sent me..." John 4:34a

Moderator
Posts: 641
5/4/05 2:11 pm
Reply
Dr. Svendsen Faith of Job 777
Hi Dr. Svendsen,

It is very difficult to interact with a person that we can perceive to be stubborn and inconsistent. I have not really spent my time reading any of Mr. Armstrong's posts, but it seems like he is construed as both. My only prayer is that you do not get sucked into focusing too much on the man, because I believe it is not worth doing. In my own amateur internet discourses with others who have disagreed with me, I have noted that I tend to be dragged into proving what kind of character the other person has. In a way, it is helpful to show who indeed is more credible. But after a while, it becomes a tedious time-consuming task, such that I end up not using my time glorifying the truths of Christ for others to be encouraged in instead. Not that I am really wise or eloquent about anything I say regarding His truths, but I intend to hopefully learn in expressing them more accurately and with sincere joy in my heart when I do.

You have been very insightful in your own thoughts about biblical truths, and about deceptions other people are sowing. Your scholarly education does shine through, and has helped a great many of us in the faith. I am not alone in appreciating your sense of humor, and your dedication to exalt Christ alone. I pray that you stay on course in all this that you do best, and not be bogged down by men who may distract you from what you do reveal as your true purpose in life.

Sincerely,

Jaime

adelphoi
Posts: 735
5/5/05 12:13 am
Reply
Re: Dr. Svendsen NTRMin
Hi Jaime,

Thanks for the reminder. Every once in a while my mischievous side takes over and ignores my better judgment not to get involved with with apologetic and theological lunatics. It's a fine line when you're involved in apologetics. You must, with the NT writers, sometimes deal with the messenger as well as the message. In the case of DA, it's almost as though his loony statements are a cartoon punchline waiting to happen.

But your point is well taken. I did not intend to make the parody on DA a protracted one; and I've already grown tired of it.

Eric

ezOP
Posts: 1879
5/5/05 1:35 pm
Reply
Thank you, Dr. Svendsen...turning to Dr. Owen Faith of Job 777
(This message was left blank)

adelphoi
Posts: 737
5/6/05 7:24 pm
Reply
Problems posting...let me see if this gets through Faith of Job 777
Thank you Dr. Svendsen for everything you have blessed us with so far. I find your latest blog post on a Mormon book published by Eerdsman, helpful. I agree with what you say about the dangers of an alleged Christian publisher advocating the release of a book to influence the Christians about the supposed validity of Mormonism as another Christian church.

But I also ask: how Christian is Eerdsman? I also find health and wealth books in Christian bookstores, published by other companies that are allegedly Christian. I find such a theology advocated by certain charismatics and noncharismatics to be very dangerous, and even unChristianlike. I also know that IVP publishes Roman Catholic writings. Perhaps Eerdsman has had some more credibility of being more faithful to Christ as a publication company in the past, but I really do not know. Maybe you can help me out, or anyone else, regarding the origins of this company, and its goals. What point must be reached before a publication company should stop itself from publishing certain books, and who is the arbiter in doing so?

Sincerely,

Jaime

adelphoi
Posts: 738
5/6/05 7:33 pm
Reply
Re: Problems posting...let me see if this gets through NTRMin
Quote:
But I also ask: how Christian is Eerdsman?

It used to be stalwart.
Quote:
I also find health and wealth books in Christian bookstores, published by other companies that are allegedly Christian.

There is usually a pattern with publishing companies, and the H&W publishers are usually recognized by that pattern.
Quote:
I also know that IVP publishes Roman Catholic writings.

Yes, IVP has been on the ECT bandwagon for some time now.
Quote:
What point must be reached before a publication company should stop itself from publishing certain books, and who is the arbiter in doing so?

My point is that once a supposed Christian publishing company has developed a reputation among Christians for publishing reliable views--or at the very least, views that are acceptable within the parameters of evangelicalism--there is an implicit trust on the part of the average Christian that anything they publish must therefore be okay. They have violated that trust. Who is the arbiter? They are, ultimately. It's their business. But that does not make it a good, sound, wise, or right decision. By way of analogy, the judges who decided Terri Schiavo should die were the arbiters. Arbiters are not alway right or just. Who should be the arbiter? The apostles, the New Testament writers, the Scriptures themselves. No one, in my opinion, can justify Eerdmans move by using the Scriptures. Why? Because the rationale for that move (as I showed in my blog entry) runs antithetical to the mind of the biblical writers.

Edited by: NTRMin at: 5/7/05 6:45 am

ezOP
Posts: 1880
5/7/05 6:43 am
Reply
Thanks! I agree with you...it can be confusing for me Faith of Job 777
Hi Dr. Svendsen,

I do personally check the publishing company before I get hold of a Christian book. I skim through the pages, and see if I can catch something that may not be edifying. I have learned to identify Catholic-leaning publishing companies, although I was surprised when IVP has been going that way too, since it is from IVP that I got "Knowing God" by JI Packer. It can be difficult at times, and I do not know if I can fully trust Hendrickson, Fortress, Baker, Nelson, and Zondervan. Broadsman and Holman, and Moody seem to be pretty consistent, and I think I can trust them more, but then again I can also be mistaken.

So in the end it can be very difficult even for an average Christian reader like me. I still consider it a useful guide to look at the publishing company and its batting average of producing books that are indeed very helpful in my Christian walk though. And it does help a good bit if the publishing company professing to be Christian takes more responsibility in helping out people like me.

Interestingly, I have noted that one of my favorite Christian writers, Dallas Willard, has been advocated by Harper-Collins, which is not exactly my cup-of-tea Christian publishing company. So do I find good Christian books, typically classics, published by Penguin. So it can add to the confusion, and yet to the welcome challenge of learning to discern as best as we can, truth from deception.

And as you rightly say, the arbiters for that would be the apostles and prophets who have given us God's Word. Their joy is evident, and it is not in the prosperity gospel, in Mary, or in any manmade idea or extrascriptural book. Their topmost priority of inspiring the Christians to live repentant and holy lives for God is through Jesus Christ and His gospel, who He is and what He has done to save men from their sins. So it does greatly matter for us to see if the patterns made by other men also focuses on this topmost priority. If not, then the Spirit will faithfully convict God's own children to always abide by seeking the guidance of His own Word before obtaining such writings of men.

Sincerely,

Jaime

adelphoi
Posts: 739
5/7/05 7:52 am
Reply
Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong William Putnam 
Hilasterion baby!

Fancy meeting you here! :)

And to conform to the forum rules, my full name is William Putnam, which is also given in my "handle," and I am a Catholic.

Hilasterion knows me from CARM, from which I have been banned by Diane. (I instigated it, I admit...)

Anyhooo, since I am seemingly prohibited from linking to Catholic apologetic sites in the rules, my activity here will be severely limited.

Anyway, greetings to you, Hilasteron! I hope you are well and with Our Lord always.

Say hello to Diane for me. :)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!



Member
Posts: 14
5/9/05 2:28 pm
Reply
Banned?? Ray Aviles
Hi Bill,

Welcome! There are quite a few of us here asides from Brent (Hilasterion). I post there once in a blue moon as "Servant." I'm sure you remember me, seeing that we've had some discussions in the past. Whatever did you get banned for, Bill? :D

Peace,
Ray

adelphoi
Posts: 460
5/10/05 5:07 am
Reply
Re: Banned?? William Putnam 
Ray Aviles replied:

Quote:
Hi Bill,

Welcome! There are quite a few of us here asides from Brent (Hilasterion). I post there once in a blue moon as "Servant." I'm sure you remember me, seeing that we've had some discussions in the past. Whatever did you get banned for, Bill?


I told Diane to her face she was a bigot!

She and I had not gotten along all that well for about a month or so, on a couple of topics that I considered just simply over the top. I almost got banned on the first occasion, but I did it purposefully on the second.

But that is water under the bridge now, as I don't intend to go back, ever. I do notice that a lot of topics are mirrored here from CARM, which is interesting.

And by the way, I do remember you, servant! :)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.


- St. Vincent Pallotti -





Member
Posts: 14
5/10/05 5:33 am
Reply
It's really harsh... Ray Aviles
...to call someone a "bigot" especially when it comes to disagreements. I've always believe the word makes more sense on a racial plane, but to call someone a bigot due to doctrinal disagreement is quite a bit overboard, don't you think? It's like the term "anti-Catholic" which is used freely by many Catholic apologists against those who disagree with Catholic distinctives. The intent being to imply some bigotry against Catholics, but disagreement doesn't necessarily equate bigotry. I guess my point is that Diane isn't any more a "bigot" for disagreeing with your doctrinal distinctives any more than you are for disagreeing with hers.

Peace,
Ray

Edited by: Ray Aviles at: 5/10/05 7:56 am

adelphoi
Posts: 461
5/10/05 7:53 am
Reply
Re: Definition of bigot... William Putnam 
Ray Aviles replied:

Quote:
...to call someone a "bigot" especially when it comes to disagreements. I've always believe the word makes more sense on a racial plane, but to call someone a bigot due to doctrinal disagreement is quite a bit overboard, don't you think? It's like the term "anti-Catholic" which is used freely by many Catholic apologists against those who disagree with Catholic distinctives. The intent being to imply some bigotry against Catholics, but disagreement doesn't necessarily equate bigotry. I guess my point is that Diane isn't any more a "bigot" for disagreeing with your doctrinal distinctives any more than you are for disagreeing with hers.


Definition:

Bigot - One who is intolerant of others.

But like I said above, it is now "water under the bridge" and I wish it to remain that way.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.

Proverbs 24:17-18


Member
Posts: 14
5/10/05 9:00 am
Reply
Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong InquisitorKind
Quote:
Anyhooo, since I am seemingly prohibited from linking to Catholic apologetic sites in the rules, my activity here will be severely limited.


Exactly what kind of activity did you have in mind in to begin with? Perhaps I simply have not engaged in enough online discussions, but what internet discussions are "severely limited" by not being able to link to Catholic (or any) apologetic sites?

~Matt

adelphoi
Posts: 258
5/10/05 1:28 pm
Reply
Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong William Putnam 
Matt replied, wher4 I last said:

color=green]Anyhooo, since I am seemingly prohibited from linking to Catholic apologetic sites in the rules, my activity here will be severely limited.[/color]

Quote:
Exactly what kind of activity did you have in mind in to begin with? Perhaps I simply have not engaged in enough online discussions, but what internet discussions are "severely limited" by not being able to link to Catholic (or any) apologetic sites?


To answer your first question, I often link to sites, like Catholic Answers, and, (gasp!), Dave Armstrong's site, for good replies that are better then the ones I produce, and besides, it saves a lot of typing on my part. :)

As for your second question, I don't know yet until I start linking! The rule seems to be vague enough that any moderator can interpret them anyway they want, (no offense to the moderators here, please!) so we will see.

I have a very funny feeling I will not be posting here long... :)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!



Member
Posts: 15
5/10/05 3:35 pm
Reply
Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong InquisitorKind
Quote:
I have a very funny feeling I will not be posting here long...


I don't speak for the site, but if you obey the rules, I don't think there should be a problem. Looking forward to your contributions.

~Matt

adelphoi
Posts: 259
5/10/05 7:40 pm
Reply
I would agree Mr. Putnam... Ray Aviles
...on the definition of the word. However, you are making my argument for me. When we are deemed "anti-Catholic" on the basis of doctrinal disagreement, this is bigotry, by your definition, correct. After all, we are being intolerant to your distinctives. However, we have a strict obligation to obey the Lord in contending for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). So, does that make one "intolerant" and, thus a bigot, or does that make one "obedient." It seems to me that you want to fix Diane to your definition and away with it?

Peace,
Ray

adelphoi
Posts: 463
5/10/05 10:34 pm
Reply
Re: I would agree Mr. Putnam... William Putnam 
Ray responded:

Quote:
...on the definition of the word. However, you are making my argument for me. When we are deemed "anti-Catholic" on the basis of doctrinal disagreement, this is bigotry, by your definition, correct. After all, we are being intolerant to your distinctives. However, we have a strict obligation to obey the Lord in contending for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). So, does that make one "intolerant" and, thus a bigot, or does that make one "obedient." It seems to me that you want to fix Diane to your definition and away with it?


When ever I call someone "anti-Catholic" in this forum, we can then discuss it. And as I said before, I have said all I want to say about Diane and what happened in the past at CARM; it is "water under the bridge."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

Edited by: William Putnam  at: 5/11/05 4:14 am

Member
Posts: 16
5/11/05 3:39 am
Reply
Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong DiscipledbyHim
Quote:
I have a very funny feeling I will not be posting here long...

Actually, the funny thing is, I thought you were banned a few months ago by Pastor King. Can't find the dialogue while you were here for that short period of time, It is probably in the archives. Anyway, welcome back.

Member
Posts: 31
5/11/05 4:21 am
Reply
Well... Ray Aviles
...I stick to my guns. I believe this is totally relevant to your situation with Diane with all respect to the "water under the bridge." Her disagreements, however "tedious" they may seem to you, can be viewed as obedience to our Lord. Thus, bigotry isn't a fair assessment of her actions.

Peace,
Ray

adelphoi
Posts: 464
5/11/05 6:56 am
Reply
Page 1 2 << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Replies
Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong NTRMin 5/4/05 4:41 am
    Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong KLPJR 5/4/05 1:14 pm
    Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong Hilasterion 5/4/05 2:11 pm
       Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong William Putnam  5/9/05 2:28 pm
          Banned?? Ray Aviles 5/10/05 5:07 am
             Re: Banned?? William Putnam  5/10/05 5:33 am
                It's really harsh... Ray Aviles 5/10/05 7:53 am
                   Re: Definition of bigot... William Putnam  5/10/05 9:00 am
          Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong InquisitorKind 5/10/05 1:28 pm
             Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong William Putnam  5/10/05 3:35 pm
                Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong InquisitorKind 5/10/05 7:40 pm
                Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong DiscipledbyHim 5/11/05 4:21 am
                   Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong William Putnam  5/11/05 10:01 am
          Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong Hilasterion 5/13/05 1:13 pm
             Re: Focusing on the Follies of Dave Armstrong William Putnam  5/13/05 1:28 pm
                praying JasonTE 5/13/05 3:45 pm
                   God bless you, sir... William Putnam  5/13/05 4:10 pm
                You got it Bill. nt Hilasterion 5/15/05 2:19 pm
                   Thank you sir! N/T William Putnam  5/15/05 2:53 pm
       I would agree Mr. Putnam... Ray Aviles 5/10/05 10:34 pm
          Re: I would agree Mr. Putnam... William Putnam  5/11/05 3:39 am
             Well... Ray Aviles 5/11/05 6:56 am
                Re: Well... William Putnam  5/11/05 9:56 am
                   It's so clear... Ray Aviles 5/11/05 1:43 pm
                   Pax? stollerusa 5/11/05 8:11 pm
                      Pax is Latin for peace... William Putnam  5/12/05 2:58 am
    Dr. Svendsen Faith of Job 777 5/5/05 12:13 am
       Re: Dr. Svendsen NTRMin 5/5/05 1:35 pm
          Thank you, Dr. Svendsen...turning to Dr. Owen Faith of Job 777 5/6/05 7:24 pm
             Problems posting...let me see if this gets through Faith of Job 777 5/6/05 7:33 pm
                Re: Problems posting...let me see if this gets through NTRMin 5/7/05 6:43 am
    Thanks! I agree with you...it can be confusing for me Faith of Job 777 5/7/05 7:52 am



Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- NTRMin Discussion Forum - The Areopagus - New Testament Research Ministries -

Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.