Prayer Request from Dave Armstrong

I humbly ask the readers of CathApol to pray for Dave Armstrong's mother.  She is very ill and has undergone risky surgery today.  Here is the request he posted to Facebook yesterday:

EXTREMELY URGENT PRAYER REQUEST: MY MOTHER LOIS, 89: LIFE-THREATENING CONDITIONS AND SURGERY

I made a request a few days ago. Things keep getting worse. First it was dehydration, then a small heart attack and heart surgery, then another surgery to drain fluid from her heart, and discovery of cancerous tumor. We're still waiting to see what kind of cancer and how bad it is.
Then we were told she needed another operation around the heart (Saturday morning), with a danger of 20% of something seriously going wrong. Without the operation, we were told she would likely die in a few days. Meanwhile I have the worst stomach and vomiting of my entire life. I ate something wrong around noon and it's gotten worse and worse: either food poisoning or a bug, or just the extreme stress and shock. So I ask for prayer for my stomach. I threw up over and over, with gaps in-between, and now I think I will again, but can't, and still have the stomach ache. Terrible blood sugar, too, from no food for 12 hours.
Please HELP dear friends with prayers and passing the word. ! This is one of the worst days of our lives. All our four kids had to find out today.
HELP!
https://www.facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798?fref=ts

Dave's Mom in 2011

Now thirty minutes after he posted this, Dave's stomach issues resolved!  Continue to pray for his mom, as I am, that she be given comfort and strength to endure this trial and that God's Will be done in her life.  Amen.

Armstrong on Recent IC Discussion

Dave Armstrong has commented on the tactics of "John Q. Doe" regarding the recent Immaculate Conception discussion between James Swan and myself.  (Dave's article from Dec. 2010 is no longer available).

Dave writes:

DA: Another tactic is presently being used by Doe. The game is to set one Catholic apologist over another with empty flattery and bogus praise: that Catholic Apologist A is so vastly superior to Catholic Apologist B, who is a dishonest rogue (it's sort of related to the famous "good cop bad cop" ploy). Thus, in this instance (Luther on the Immaculate Conception: A Response to Scott Windsor), I am cast in the worst possible light, as the villain, and Windsor is praised as the hero:

JS: I have no doubt that Scott is a man of integrity, and that he'll make the necessary corrections to his entries. I don't find him to be anything like the other apologist, who, when confronted with this information, has simply kept calling me names while benefiting from my research.

I can see Dave's point, and I did see James comments as him pitting me against "the other apologist" - whom I suspected was Dave, but wasn't sure (Swan refers to a few other Catholic apologists he's responded to on this topic).  In the "If the shoe fits" analogy, Dave just put that shoe on.  That being said - I did not see Dave's responses as "simply calling (James) names," in fact Dave reached many of the same conclusions I did in my responses.  James also claimed Dave finally conceded he (James) was correct on the matter of the Immaculate Conception; I never saw that concession.

Dave continues:

DA: What is far more interesting to me is the cynical use of lying and distorting past history in order to suck up to Scott Windsor now. I highly doubt the sincerity of this present vast change of mind of Doe with regard to Windsor, because I know of past encounters between the two that suggest quite a different state of affairs.

Well, I have to agree with Dave here, at least to a point.  Yes, James in the past has been quite critical of me personally, going off on me personally and not responding to what I've actually said.  Again, Dave cites some examples in his article.  I am trusting of my fellow man, and perhaps to a fault (which I'm sure is what Dave is getting at here).  From my perspective, what James was saying about me was true - I did not resort to namecalling and I have shown the willingness to correct the web page/article on my site.  I did not see the need to make a comparison to me and "the other apologist" - and until now, I really haven't commented on James' comparison.  Perhaps James truly appreciated my approach?  Fine, he did not need to draw Dave into this.  Perhaps James deliberately made this comparison to either draw Dave into the discussion again - or he was trying to play me against Dave for some other purpose - which I won't speculate on.  Regardless - we should ALL refrain from going personal as such discussion end up looking quite petty to an objective onlooker.

My desire and goal is to present the TRUTH.  I have no desire of making this a battle of testosterone.  Frankly, it does not matter who finds something first - so long as the TRUTH is being posted.  Now, is it common courtesy and scholarship to credit one's sources?  Sure thing!  We should strive to do that all the time.  One frustration I have had with James in the IC series is that he has, more than once, referred to "online sources" but does not provide a link, as if he wants me to "work" at it.  This could, however, be perceived as him not wishing to share these sources because perhaps I (or others) will find things in these sources which may not be in James' favor and he's deliberately not sharing sources for that reason.  Whatever the reason - I've found sufficient sources and cited them as I go.  Some I found on my own, some came from Dave's site - and some came from James' blog(s).  Again, if the TRUTH is coming out - who said it first is immaterial; WHAT was said is what we should be our primary concern.

Enough said?

Scott<<<

What Is Wrong with White

Roman Unity: If it Promotes Mother Rome, It's All Good

So goes the headline from James White's blog from January 6th, whereas that's a bit hyperbolic and not entirely true - let's take a look at White's blog:

01/06/2010 - James White
My first moderated, public debate was on the subject of Roman Catholicism. It took place in August of 1990. Since I have a few decades of experience now,

sw: If anyone is counting, White states he began in "August of 1990" and since it is just January of 2010, that's not even two complete decades and "a few" would indicate more than two, generally at least three or more. So White begins his statements with an exaggeration of the truth [or perhaps it just seems to him to be more than a couple decades, nonetheless, he would be better served to have stated "nearly two decades of experience"].

I find myself shaking my head in disbelief at one particular fact over and over again: Rome's apologists just don't seem driven to work hard in their field.

sw: I used to shake my head in disbelief at how White constantly attacks the persons he confronts before he even tries to deal with what they have said - but I don't anymore, it's so commonplace in reading his "debates" and bloggings that it can hardly be disbelieved anymore.

Further, they clearly observe the "throw everything including the kitchen sink in defense of Rome, no matter how objectively bad it is on a scholarly level."

sw: (Yawn) more personal attacking - though this attack is on Catholic apologists as a whole, the attack is against each of them (us) personally as if we all observe the methodology he imputes upon us all.

Illustration: today Patrick Madrid took a shot at "Calvinists" in general on his blog. For someone who has yet, to my knowledge, to engage a Calvinist on the relevant subjects (of course I would, Patrick, let's set it up!) in debate,

sw: White seems to think that "debates" are the best way to engage someone on a given subject. Whereas I can see some advantage to debating - often what happens is both sides walk away considering they have "won" the debate and little is actually accomplished. A more "engaging" discussion would be an "online/written debate." I would be more than willing to engage White in such - and have several times in the past - but White apparently doesn't like the fact that in such a written debate he's put on a more equal ground with his opponent. Little tricks that can sway or influence someone in a live debate don't work in a written debate. The fact that he's been caught in error MANY times in written debate is likely another reason he avoids such and prefers to go the testosterone way, mano y mano, because - as I will freely admit, he's quite talented in manipulating a live debate.

sw: Illustration - in 2001 White challenged me to a "live debate/discussion" on his "Dividing Line" webcast and I accepted. Previous to his challenge I had been discussing John 6 and the Eucharist and he challenged me to this discussion, I assumed, based upon those John 6 and the Eucharist discussions that when White proposed the topic of John 6 that indeed we'd discuss the same and I accepted. I prepared for a debate/discussion on the Eucharist and John 6 - he opened with a 5 minute opening statement which didn't even touch upon the Eucharistic meanings in John 6! Instead - he turned it into a Calvinstic discussion on predestination, etc. That was my first "live" debate, and I admit that I wasn't skilled enough at the time to refocus the discussion back to what actually prompted the challenge - and that's a tactic that he'd have a hard time pulling on me now. Anyway, the point is - he has talent in debating someone live, I do not deny that. My point is that being persuasive in a live debate does not necessarily equate to an accurate promotion of the truth. As for the 2001 encounter, in the "live" session I do not feel there was a true "winner" at all. White threw a curve ball at me, discussing something I was not prepared to discuss - but even though I don't believe I "won" that exchange, I did hold my own in answering him (and his callers, who went off on even more tangents). What IS clear from that exchange is in the non-live/written exchange, White abandoned the debate leaving many challenges unanswered (see link below).

I find his surface-level retorts somewhat amusing. But what is amazing are the three links he provides for, what he calls, "quite able" refutations of Calvinism. Two are ancient articles Jimmy Akin wrote years and years ago, neither of which provide much in the way of substance.

sw: The objective reader here can see that White is not attacking ANY of the substance from Jimmy Akin's articles - and he admits there is SOME substance to those articles just not much in his not-so-humble opinion. White's only accusation against Akin's articles is the AGE of the articles! Truth, I'm sure the objective reader will affirm, is timeless so with the lack of ANY substance to White's presentation - it should be summarily dismissed.

And the third is to Dave Armstrong's series on Calvin! Now, with all due respect to ol' Dave Armstrong, he is one of the clearest examples of why past canon law prohibited laymen from engaging in public disputation in defense of Rome. Serious readers in the field realize that while Dave may stumble over a thoughtful argument once in a while, it is always to be found somewhere else. He simply does not produce original argumentation of any kind, and clearly does not understand the responses that have been offered to him over and over again.

sw: Again we see that White merely attacks the person of Dave Armstrong. "Ol' Dave Armstrong," he says "is one of the clearest examples of why past canon law prohibited laymen from engaging in public disputation in defense of Rome." What White doesn't do is a) present us with the former canon law (as if that would apply today anyway) or b) any "examples" from Armstrongs literally dozens of references. No, it seems it was much easier for White to engage in character assassination (again) instead of any substantial argument against either Armstrong or Madrid. I fully expect, if he chooses to respond to me at all (which he pretty much avoids any direct responses to me anymore after I've been able to demonstrate and document his errors on too many occassions) that he will attempt the same with me, character assassination and no substantial arguments. I would be quite engaged if he were to prove me wrong on this point and actually deal with some substance.

So, we find Madrid once again pulling out of mothballs surface-level materials that are nearly two decades old, and promoting Dave Armstrong as "quite able" refutations of Reformed theology.

sw: Actually, what we find is White once again participating in nothing more than the apologetics of personal destruction. He has not engaged a single amount of substance from either Madrid, Armstrong or Akin but merely engaged in personal attacks.

One is truly left wondering if these men really think this kind of material has real weight and meaning, or if they are just too bored to do serious work in the field. I will leave it to the reader to decide. 
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3716

sw: I am glad White leaves it to the reader to decide, for the objective reader will have to question who is really getting bored here and merely resorting to personal attacks and not engaging ANY substance AT ALL in this character assassination piece. And now, so I am not accused of the same thing I accuse White of, let's look at what White is critiquing and see if there's some substance there or not, shall we?

Here's Patrick Madrid's Blog:

Things are getting a little fidgety over in Calvinland, at least within the Sovereign Calvinist embassy to Free Republic. The Great Reformed Ping List is underway again, complete with some obligatory tub-thumping and chest-beating about their enemies' "anthropomorphic rantings" and how their solas are being "mightily assailed," etc., etc.

sw: Well, not a lot of substance there, but he does refer to "The Great Reformed Ping List" which is being "revitalised" on FreeRepublic. In fact that's pretty much the whole of Madrid's blog is just a comment that this GRPL is being reactivated - and he takes a bit of interest or "fun" in watching them banter about...

It's kind of fun to watch (bad Latin grammar and all), but still, it's sad to see good people become so hopelessly entangled in the errors of the Calvinist religious system (some of which are quite ably refuted here, here, and here).

sw: Now I grant you, Madrid does not get into examples of the "errors of the Calvinist religious system" here - but he does refer us to Armstrong and Akin. If White were doing a thorough refutation then he would have at least directly engaged those articles (Armstrong's is more of a list of articles) with at least some clear examples of where Armstrong and Akin have falsely represented Calvinism. White doesn't do that though, he merely attacks the persons of Madrid, Armstrong and Akin. So yes, let the reader decide - the objective reader can surely see who appears to be "bored" and who actually thinks it's "kind of fun to watch" such discourses. Madrid closes with a quote from the Free Republic forum:

Exurge, Calvinisti, et judica causam tuam...


Arise (some older mss still read 'Swarm'), O Calvinists, and plead your cause. The doctrines of grace are mightily assailed by those who would proclaim with their father, “I will be like the Most High.” Set forth the biblical case for a sovereign God who is jealous for His glory. Disallow through disputation (and lampooning when needed) the damnable errors of those who have refashioned the great sola doctrines into a salvation-helper gospel that exalts the fallen will of man.
From every corner, in every thread exalt the right of God to do whatsoever He pleaseth. Be not dismayed by persistent anthropocentric rantings. Blessed are you when they revile you for the sake of the truth. Happy are ye when the Servetus card is played and the strawmen are paraded before you for He who is enthroned in heaven reigns. http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2010/01/calvinists-are-swarming-over-on-free.html

sw: So, where Madrid was only observing the "rennovation" of the GRPL and call to "swarm" the Calvinists, actually quoting something from that forum, White only attacks the persons of Madrid, Armstrong and Akin. Well, yes, he did attack the AGE of Akin's arguments - but again "age" has no relevance to truth. White does not assail ANY substance in Akin's articles. Oh, and if White is ready to really engage me yet, there are several unanswered challenges to him here:

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/jrw
 
sw: I fully expect that if there is ANY answer to this at all, it will be scoffing, character assassination upon me and a complete avoidance of ANY substance at all. Will White deal with the fact that he misused Scripture in regard to 1 Cor. 3:10-15? Will White finally deal with the, at least 29 enumerated errors from our first live "debate" from his Dividing Line webcast? Again, I would be humbly pleased to be proven wrong in my prediction here and find that White actually respectfully responded to the challenges, or even ONE of the challenges before him. So yes, let the reader decide - and wait to see what sort of response, if any, is forthcoming.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

PS- Slight edits made today, and I noticed the "white boxes" in the 1 Cor. 3:10-15 article have disappeared and will have to fix those later.

Deuterocanonical Books in the New Testament

A list compiled by Dave Armstrong:

 Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents. 

 Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure. 

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others. 

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation. 

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd. 

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth. 

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books. 

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13. Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers. 

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17. 

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28. 

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18. 

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15. 

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17. 

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18. 

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14. 

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9. 

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37. 

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18. 

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26. 

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1. 

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29. 

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8. 

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16. John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21. 

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59. John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36. 

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off. 

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve. 

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12. 

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10. 

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10. 

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1. 

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8. 

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27. 

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19. 

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24. 

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7. 

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13. 

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30. 

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3. 

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7. 

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7. 

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45. 

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7. 

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8. Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20. 

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4. 

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16. 

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15. 

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah. 

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42. 

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23. 

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11. 

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17. 

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11. 

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20. 

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5. 

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds. 

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6. 

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One. 

 Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13. 

 Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16. 

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8. 

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15. 

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29. 

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9. 

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7. 

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4. 

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18. 

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8. 

 Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4. 

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17. 

And some OT references: Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person. 

1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20. 

 2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9. 

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html