Monday, June 01, 2009

Catalogue / Index: About Me (Dave Armstrong)


Liz said...

Saint John Bosco Parish Mbonge

If you can make a small donation, then God bless you. Thank you. said...

David, hello from an old friend. I'd be very happy to have you as a guest on our weekly 90 minute webcast which has in a short time received over 2,700 listens from visitors in some 17 nations.

Apologists like yourself serve all Catholics well and it won't hurt to have yet another opportunity to advertise your website and books?

It would focus entirely on Fundamentalists-Evangelical issues, positive and negative, contemporary and historical; it would be very conversational, easy, no ambush questions or issues.

Call me or write if you think you might be interested?

Thanks for your consideration and you might visit the webcast page to hear the style of the conversations with people of all theological

Stanley said...

Dear Dave Armstrong,
I just received your new book. Thank you so much for a great amount of valuable information that we can share with other.

I compiled a "Parish Evangelization Education" text and am looking for someone to help me get it published.
I sent it to Sophia Institute but the leading publisher said "make it happen in the parishes first" What should I do? We are now waiting for a new Bishop here is Austin Texas .

Thank you
Stan Dominski

Sean and Stephanie said...


I thought you would get a kick of this thread:


Its from the Steve Hays/Jason Engwer playground. Check out the comments.

Dave Armstrong said...

H S&S,

It was entertaining (though at bottom, depressing) reading. You did an excellent job. Kudos.

I went through the same runaround with Engwer on SS and the Fathers years ago. It was a big public debate at CARM (probably the largest Protestant discussion forum). He split right in the middle of it, and I was on his ground: anti-Catholic territory.

At least he is cordial. I'll give him that much. Hays is a bigoted slanderer, as we saw yet again. He goes to personal attack right away in most "debates" he is in.

I commend you for your patience. I have lost all of mine with anti-Catholics, and ignore them now, except for the historically important Protestant founders.

Maria said...

I am The editor/writer with I really liked your site and i am interested in building a relationship with your site. We want to spread public awareness. I hope you can help me out. Your site is a very useful resource.

Please email me back with your URL in subject line to take a step ahead and also to avoid spam.

Thank you,
Maria Jones

Paula said...

Dear Mr. Armstrong,
I stumbled upon your blog, and was intrigued. I am also a convert from Protestantism. But, it seems from looking at your blog, that our experiences are very, very, different. After conversion, to the Catholic Faith,my husband and i came to see that the Catholic Church, at least the Church that is most visible for all to see, simply, is not. After taking the steps of being baptized, and going through a thing, that was supposed to be catechism(really a very loose therapy session), we realized,that even though, some things, were Catholic, or just looked Catholic, many things(the most important things), simply were not. The past several years have been like traveling down a funnel, where the Church, upon the Earth, has gotten smaller and smaller, simply because, so many have fallen, so many have believed lies, instead of thousands of years of infallible, solemn teachings that have been preserved for all of good will to see.

You seem like a man, who looks at things, and reasons them out, and who seeks the truth. So, why aren't you not noticing that most people who say that they are Catholic, are not. Why haven't you noticed, that even men who call themselves, "Priest", aren't even Catholic? Why do you still recognize the last few men who called themselves, "Pope", as such? Since, only Catholics can be such a thing...

The visible impostors that call themselves Catholic, and claim at the same time, that there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church, whilst paying reverent, respect to false religions, cannot be Catholic, as they are heretical in their false beliefs. This kind of heresy, as i'm sure you know, automatically excommunicates from the Catholic Church. And, as i'm sure you can guess, if they are excommunicated from the Catholic Church, they can have no hope for salvation, unless they abjure their heresy, and reconcile themselves to God, and all of His saving truth, through the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.

Please, do take the time to write, as i'm very eager to hear what you might have to say about this...

I will pray for you tonight, hoping that you will have eyes to see and ears to hear...

Praying for you, Paula

Paula said...

p.s. sorry about the typos, i meant, why are you not noticing? It's getting late ;)

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Paula,

I've written quite a bit about nominal Catholics, and also about "traditionalist" Catholics like yourself. See my web page on the latter:

If you are a sedevacantist, there are a few papers about that on that page. I don't waste my time arguing about it, since I regard it as an utterly absurd position.

phil grieves said...

tell me about rose creek village brother...are they christians..

Dave Armstrong said...

From what I can tell, reading their website, they are Christians, though they're not very specific about their doctrinal beliefs.

Generally, I am cautiously skeptical about any group that talks about "we just follow Jesus" and is very vague about their doctrine. That leaves a door wide open for possible heretical beliefs.

Communes of this sort are notorious for leadership abuse and eccentric belief-systems, even if they begin with perfectly good intentions..

More info:

Hannah said...

This is Hannah Bevills, Editor for which is a social network made specifically for Christians, by Christians, to directly fulfill Christian's needs. We embarked on this endeavor to offer the ENTIRE christian community an outlet to join together as one (no matter denomination) and better spread the good word of Christianity. has many great features aside from the obvious like christian TV, prayer request or even find a church/receive advice. We have emailed you because we have interest in collaborating with you and your blog to help us spread the good word. I look forward to an email regarding the matter, Thanks!

God Bless
|Hannah Bevills||

Of Mike and Men said...


I posted this elsewhere, I think, but I lost the post.

I just started reading "A Biblical Defense of Catholicism," I just finished the first chapter and have a couple of statements/questions for you.

You mention in there that the reference to scripture would have only alluded to the old testament. However, among the early church, it was held that the writings of Paul were of equal importance to the Old Testament. We see this in 2 Peter 3:16 where Peter equates scripture to Paul's writings. So, in reality, it would have been the Gospels/Hebrews/Acts/1,2,3 John/Revelation/etc. that were in question. Not the Pauline, am I wrong to say this?

Secondly, you said that the 2 Timothy 3:16 passage does not tell us that scripture alone is sufficient. But, I believe it does. It says that ALL scripture is profitable for EVERY good work. So, if it can supply us for every good work, isn't scripture sufficient enough?


Dave Armstrong said...

I answered where you posted it elsewhere. See:

The logical place to post this question would have been on the book page:

Or under the Bible and Tradition web page:

Maroun said...

Of Mike and Men said...
Secondly, you said that the 2 Timothy 3:16 passage does not tell us that scripture alone is sufficient. But, I believe it does. It says that ALL scripture is profitable for EVERY good work. So, if it can supply us for every good work, isn't scripture sufficient enough?
Hi Mike .
Look,the first question which you asked to Dave , should prove to you that scripture alone is not enough . If scripture alone is enough , then how come Peter is warning that in Paul`s writings there are many things difficult and hard to understand?And who decides what and how the words of Paul are correctly understood?And also in your first question , could you please show us a complete list of Paul`s writings which Peter mentioned?Peter only said in all of his writings,but it was the Church which told us which are the writings of Paul , the same as it is the Church which teaches us the true meanings of the scriptures and not any private individual and private interpretations , in fact in the same epistle from which you quoted 2 Pet. 1:20 , Peter is specificaly saying that (Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.)so as you can see scriptures should not be privatly interpreted , that`s the duty of the Church to whom our Lord gave the authority to tell us,teach us and protect and interpret the word of God .Because without authority you will only have confusion and our God is not the author of confusion and sola scriptura causes confusion so sola scriptura is not from God . I mean come on just look around you and see the divisions and confusion and hatred which sola scriptura has caused , not to mention relativism and many other things .
GBU and i encourage you to keep reading ,praying and asking

Adomnan said...

I would suggest that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not say scripture is profitable for every good work, but rather that teaching, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness (in short, one's upbringing and education) equip a man for every good work. Scripture is "profitable" to this education. I don't see any statement about scripture being sufficient, only that it is useful for educative purposes.

Moreover, Paul is writing to Timothy as a pastor, and so he is speaking of the usefulnss of scripture in a pastor's education. Although scripture study is profitable to people in other ways of life as well, that is not the point Paul is making here. said...

Hey Dave,

Could you help me understand what paragraph 460 of the catechism means? Specifically the quotes from St. Athanasius and St. Thomas Aquinas?

How can I explain to a protestant that this paragraph does not mean we actually become God?

Thank you and God Bless!


Maroun said...

Hi Gagefit .
I humbly believe that the paragraph explains itself very clearly .
The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
And about the facts that we become gods , this word is not at all alien to scriptures , for example in John 10:34 this is what our Lord Jesus himself who is the truth and never lies said :Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, [1] I said, ye are gods?and again in John 10:35 He continues :If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), and you do of course know that these words are taken from Psalm 82:6 , I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High.
So as you can see , we dont become God in the sense your protestant friend wants to understand it , but in the sens explained in the same paragraph,that we become partakers because we enter into communion with God .Christ who is truly God and truly one , when we are baptised , we become members of His body which is the Church , Christ and His Church are one .

Maroun said...

One more thing . Do you remember Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden?they wanted to become God , they wanted to decide what is right and what is wrong instead of trusting God and obeying Him , and that`s why they fell . But now , it is thrue grace , thrue this undeserved unmerited supernatural gift of God , that we enter into communion with God and become adopted sons of God and partakers of the divine natures .
So just as our Lord Jesus Christ is God and the only begotten Son of God , we the Christians are also sons of God but again adopted , and because when we are one with Jesus Christ , in this sense also the word of the Cathechism of saint Athanasius (God)must be understood . In fact the orthodox still use the word (divinised ) because of this divine sonship that we received thrue the only begoteen son of God , our Lord Jesus Christ .

Maroun said...

Gagefit , please check also John chapter 17 and especialy the verses 11 and 21 .

Dave Armstrong said...

Here is a Catholic Answers discussion on divinization:

And a good article: said...

Thank you for the responses. From what I have read, I am understanding that to be "partakers of the divine nature" is a statement that articulates our union with Christ, our divine sonship, our conformity to the image and likeness of Christ, and the infusion of the Holy Spirit within us. I understand that this happens through the sacraments, most especially in the Eucharist. Is this understanding correct?

Would it be correct to say that the statements made by Aquinas and Athanasius are overstatements of how closely we are united with Christ. Because although we are united to the Divine nature and conformed to Christ's image and likneness, we don't actually become part of or transform into God.

Thank you for the feedback! God Bless!

Dave Armstrong said...

Yes to the first question.

It is not a literal equation with God; it is a pungent, striking way to express profound union with God, made possible by the Eucharist, the Indwelling, regeneration, etc.

JoJo said...

Dear Mr. Armstrong,

I appreciate your website and have learned a lot from it. I will however like to admonish you to keep an open mind, and stray from comments like
"I commend you for your patience. I have lost all of mine with anti-Catholics, and ignore them now, except for the historically important Protestant founders." This to me is highly defensive and makes your arguments harder to believe. Also the mud-slinging done between Mr. White and yourself seems quite un-christian on both parts. I feel like such intellects could be put to better use than merely chicken fighting over issues such as the communion of Saints and Purgatory.

Thanks for your site
reply to me here

Dan said...

Hi Dave: Something that keeps coming up in conversations with my Protestant brothers in regard to the Eucharist:

THe objection goes:
"Jesus said to do this in REMEMBRANCE of ME, NOT 'adore me' in the Eucharist!" (meaning, it was intended merely as a symbolic reminder and nothing else).

My Protestant friend is rather obsessed with the literalness of the word "remembrance", while denying the literalness of Jesus's words: "this is my body; this is my blood"

Could you elaborate more on the understanding of "Remembrance" here?

Also: Perhaps you could point me to some strong resources on "eucharistic adoration". What is the Biblical, historical basis for this in the church?

Dan said...

And a follow-up on my previous question (and somewhat related to GageFit's comment):

Aren't the Catholics placing a higher value in the graces of the Eucharist OVER the Power of the Holy Spirit in a person's life?

My protestant friend argues "It's the HOLY SPIRT that's the source and summit of the Christian life --- not the Eucharist!"

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Dan,

I have a paper on the biblical meaning of "remember":

Passover in Judaism: "Past Events Become Present Today" (Analogy to the Sacrifice of the Mass) / "Remember" in Scripture

Adoration follows from the fact of Christ being truly present in the consecrated host. Therefore, it goes back top the biblical basis for believing in the real, substantial presence, and I provide those in many papers on my Eucharist page.

As for the Eucharist (Jesus) vs. the Holy Spirit: that's simply a Protestant false dichotomy. In any event, Jesus made it clear that if we didn't partake of the Eucharist, we have no life in us (John 6). Every Christian is already indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That's a given.

Tess said...

Hello, Dave.
I am presently reading "The Catholic Verses" and I would like to ask you a question that has been presented to me by a Lutheran frined. She insists that although the Catholics gave the Bible to them, Catholics then added the 7 additional books that they do not consider inspired. I was under the impression that we gave the Bible to them with all 73 books, and they decided to strike the 7 books that did not make sense to them. Is she correct?
I am just beginning my journey into Catholicism even though I am a "cradle Catholic." While I was growing up we were considered "too stupid" to read the Bible on our own. Any information you have time to provide will be appreciated. Thank you, and great book!


Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Tess,

Thanks for your inquiry, for reading my book, and your kind words.

I have lots of articles pertaining to what you mention, and many related topics, on my Bible and Tradition web page:

Gage Livingston said...

Hey Dave,

Just wondering how you would respond to this:

I brought up 1 Thessalonians 2:13 as a verse that disproves sola scriptura because it reveals oral revelation is also an infallible authority.

Here is the response I received:
If we truly exegete this verse what Paul is teaching is: they as Paul taught the Thessalonians the Scriptures...they recognized it (the teaching) as the Word of God (because Paul's teaching was from the Scripture) and not as merely Paul's or some other (human's) person's teaching.

You see Paul was teaching the Scriptures and people were welcoming...regarding...accepting it as the Word of God!!

Thanks and God Bless!

Dave Armstrong said...

I would say he is eisgeting and merely assuming what he needs to prove. "Word of God" does not usually mean "Scripture" (check out, e.g., many instances of this or "Word of the Lord" from the prophets).

The sola Scripura advocate is forced to fall back on a position with no proof: that all of the apostles' message always made it into Scripture. There is no way to prove that. said...

Hey Dave,

I brought up to a protestant the canon of scripture argument to disprove sola scriptura. One of the premises is that having the correct canon is necessary for our salvation because if we had the wrong canon our salvation would be jeopardized.

He said the premise isn't valid because one can be saved without knowing scripture or having the correct canon.

How would you respond?


Dave Armstrong said...

I'd say he's switching the topic. It's an argument against SS, not about whether one can be saved without Scripture, which is presupposed as true in, e.g., Romans 2. You gotta get people to stay on topic in arguments. If they don't, don't waste time with 'em. Some people are unable to do rational argument, either from lack of logic, personal insecurity, or lack of desire to seek and follow truth wherever it leads.

Rob Brock said...


I spend much of my time digging through early church writings and wondered what tools you used when gathering quotes for your posts and books? I've got to believe there's a better way then I'm using to quickly get to the relevant sources.

I had a couple other questions related to research and discussion blogs but I'm not sure posting them is the best method. Let me know if posting them here makes sense.

Rob Brock

Linda Drahusz said...


I am interested in the picture you have on your site of Jesus holding the bread. Is it available for sale anywhere? Do you know the name of it?


Linda Drahusz said...


I am interested in the picture you have on your site of Jesus holding the bread. Is it available for sale anywhere? Do you know the name of it?


Dave Armstrong said...

I don't know, Linda. said...

Hey Dave,

How are we to understand ccc #841:

The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Do we really adore the same God as Muslims? How exactly are Muslims part of the plan of salvation?

Dave Armstrong said...