Monday, June 01, 2009

Catalogue / Index: Catholic Apologetics, Theology, and History

.
.
.
Apologetics: Catholic and General Christian


Baptism and Sacramentalism




The Bible, Tradition, Canon, and Sola Scriptura


 

The Church (Ecclesiology)

“Biblical Evidence” Series (200+ papers)


G. K. Chesterton: The “Colossal Genius” (Links)


Conversion and Converts (Catholic)
 



Dialogues, Theological (List of 624)




 


Hell and the Devil / Eschatology (Last Things)

Inquisition, Crusades, and “Scandals”

 

Mary: The Blessed Virgin


Malcolm Muggeridge: The Iconoclast (Links)




 



Salvation, Justification, and “Faith Alone”

 
Radical Catholic Reactionaries vs.  Catholic Traditionalism

 


Trinitarianism and Christology


http://i681.photobucket.com/albums/vv178/DaveArmstrong/shield.png

17 comments:

Sophia's Lover said...

Hello, Dave,

I was just wondering what page that essay was on which compared Protestant and Secularist underlying assumptions, as I can't find it anywhere and found it fascinating when I last read it.

Thanks,

Pito

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Pito,

Yeah, that was a little hard to find. It is listed on my Catholic and General apologetics page:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/04/presuppositions-patterns-of-thought.html

Sophia's Lover said...

Thanks, Dave.

Pito

imask8r said...

Hello Dave,

I enjoy much of your insight Dave. I have a question with regards to names of denominations. Although the meaning of "Catholic" "Baptist" "Born-again" etc. are in themselves
expressions of our beliefs and not wrong....through offense and of coarse mans wrongful actions in these denominations there has come division and prejudices that run so deeply that I can not help but think; should we be called "Catholic","Born-again", "Evangelical" etc. or perhaps should we be merely followers of Christ called according to his purpose; and of course saved by grace? I am so grieved at the division amongst God's people because of what our denominational names have COME to represent. When Nicodemus approached Jesus He did not respond by telling the man to become (a denominational name). ALthough deep study into the word Catholic can reveal so much good...who does this study in order to come to the original meaning. I am sorry if my question is somewhat obscure and all over the place. My hope, and I believe yours is too; is that Jesus is glorified in His people and not any method,denomination or practice. What are your thoughts in this matter. Thank you in advance for considering my quandaries :) Jesse

Dave Armstrong said...

Hello,

"Catholic" means universal, and that which is universal is unified. That is the rationale behind our use of the term. The Church was and is one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. There is only one Church. That is the biblical teaching. Therefore, the task for every Christian / follower of Christ is to examine the claims of each Christian communion.

When we do that,I think it is no contest. The Catholic Church began with Peter (Matthew 16) and has an unbroken history. In it resides the fullness of apostolic Christianity. That is why I am a Catholic. I was tired of all the divisions and fighting too.

I have respect for all Christians as my brothers and sisters in Christ. We're all saved by grace (Catholics fully accept that truth, too). But when it comes to identifying what the Church is, then I don't think any other communion can hold a candle to Catholic claims.

danny said...

dave,Im a twenty year convert.I work in the entertainment industry.I have no formal education,and it has taken me these years to learn my apologetics.I find that most of those I hold those kinds of conversations with,even though they are well trained in their own position,are unfamiliar with the collective tools of apologetics.That is to say,that my 'defense'goes right over their heads,and bears no fruit.I look for better ways to communicate,but I see nothing productive in dumbing down.Your apologia is right where it ought to be,cause its the real and essential thing,but my question for is,'have you considered writing a short,to the point collection,especially for those who cant[or wont] read,and arent used to a full size book.You know,maybe fifty or sixty pages.
he

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Danny,

Thanks for your comment.

The closest to what you suggest is my book, The One-Minute Apologist, because it offers just two pages on any given topic. Inserts in The New Catholic Answer Bible are even shorter: one page. Then there are my short papers on this blog (I separate short and long into categories).

Catholic Defender said...

Hello Mr. Dave,

Thank you for providing us Catholic bloggers some backup on Apologetics. God bless you and your family as well.

Dave Armstrong said...

You're welcome. Thanks for your friendly note. :-)

Of Mike and Men said...

Dave,

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?

Thanks.

Dave Armstrong said...

Thanks for your questions, and for reading my book.

2 Peter 3:16 is the only place I'm aware of that refers to the NT as "Scripture." But in other NT usage, I believe it is uniformly referring to the OT. But then of course it doesn't tell us there which of Paul's writings is referred to, so that remained as a judgment for the Church to make (the canon issue). So this is a good point to an extent but doesn't prove much. Then when we get to the canon issue, that is not in line with sola Scriptura because it involved an infallible Church decision that
sola Scriptura precludes by definition.

2 Timothy 3:16 . . . 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?

Yes, it can do that, but this is a far cry from teaching what sola Scriptura means, which is that Scripture is the only final infallible authority and that the Church is not. Lots of concepts there that are not touched at all in 2 Timothy 3:16, and there are also many other Bible passages that contradict sola Scriptura.

Moreover, the passage is in line with material sufficiency, which means that all doctrines can be found in Scripture, whether explicitly, implicitly or by deduction. But it doesn't teach formal sufficiency of Scripture, which has to do with the rule of faith (sola Scriptura for Protestants and the "three-legged stool" of Bible-Church-Tradition for Catholics).

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

Catholic Books said...

Hi, I just want to inform you, there are free saints' books available here:

Saints' Books
http://www.saintsbooks.net/

Free Catholic Books
http://catholic-books.blogspot.com/

Saints' Quotes
http://www.saintsquotes.net/

Books written by St Alphonsus Liguori, St Faustina, St John of the Cross, Sacred Music from the Vatican, and others.

They are in the public domain, so feel free to share them, or even publish them for the good of souls.
Merry Christmas!

Dave Armstrong said...

Thanks for the info. Excellent!

DTO said...

Hi Dave

I'm currently on 'One minute', I was asked whether a protestant receives less grace since they do not have the sacrament of reconciliation?

thanks
DTO

Dave Armstrong said...

They would receive less grace by not obtaining that sacrament, but so would Catholics who go to confession less than others. There are many means of grace. Protestants receive grace in other ways (e.g., baptism, marriage: which we regard as a sacrament if it is a valid marriage between two baptized Christians.

dhayang said...

Thanks Dave!