I’m an Official Running Gag!
DA, as he is affectionately known to my fellow “anti-Catholic” apologists James Swan and James White, has now made two posts, here and here, in reference to this one post from me.
Two posts for the price of one? Shucks, I don’t know what to say. This post has quelled my fears about this little item, cited on Swan’s blog:
To the extent that I deal with anti-Catholics at all, I’ll stick to at least influential ones like James White. He affects a lot of people, and so, needs to be countered and refuted. But Swan is a lightweight in the anti-Catholic apologetic world. Let him write posts like this, then. I have better things to do than to waste my time reading them, let alone responding.
I was worried that DA wouldn’t respond to me anymore, even once I post my reply to the Vicar of Christ fiasco from the previous week. Since, after all, if James Swan is a lightweight, then I must be sub-atomic-particle-weight.
But, I see that my mini-feud with Mr. Armstrong is still alive and well. Perhaps it is because I’m keeping it more friendly and less drenched with sarcasm than Swan is? Friendly theological debate is far more edifying and both parties stand to benefit from the interchange. After all, I’ve learned about perichoresis from this debate and that has placed me in greater awe of God than I already was. Concepts like perichoresis make me all that much more devoted to Him, solidify my trust in the gospel, and make me all the more willing to proclaim my faith to others. Perichoresis shows how infinite God really is.
The fact that He is contained by nothing, but in fact contains everything, just leaves me in perfect wonder. And I suppose I have Mr. Armstrong to thank for starting me on this journey, because if I had never happened upon the information in his blog, I would never have researched it to provide a proper response to his other musings.
I hope that I have, or will, benefit him in some small way as well.
No need to worry about a non-response from me (though you would live if it happened; I’ve been through that some 25 times with James White).
You’re in the process of defending White’s description of the Holy Spirit as the “vicar of Christ” (which I have argued is heretical at bottom, since it implies that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to Jesus). As usual White can’t and won’t defend his own wacky assertions, so you have to do it for him (just as Swan often has). But since it is really White’s argument, not yours, I will devote time to refuting it.
Swan has acted like a complete idiot in his last post, and so he will not be responded to under any circumstance, even if he claims that I embezzled $463,998 and ran off with the cute bank teller down the street. As far as I am concerned, your work is far more impressive than his, and you even have the dignity to apologize openly and retract when you screw up. I admire anyone who does that.
“Swan has acted like a complete idiot in his last post…”
Remember the fine print: DA has “given up totally on any hope of intelligent discourse”…with me, but we can still benefit from such statements like these.
Cory, I’ve been at it with DA for a long time. I guess if someone were to read my latest entries in regard to him, one may think that I am this terrible person towards these pop-Catholic- apologist-types like DA.
But, there was a time when I actually took months to compose a response to DA:
http://www.ntrmin.org/Respone%20to%20Armstrong%20on%20Luther%20and%20Mary.htm
His counter-responses were not up to a standard I expected, but rather, a patched-together-mish-mash in process. Even back then, his tactic was rhetorical insults- he didn’t even know exactly who he was responding to, but spewed out hostility. Sure, he apologized, but even still, I recall he went on to compose some stupid thing like mocking my CARM user name, calling me “Tertiumsquid” or something stupid like that…in some sort of comedy thing he wrote, and later retracted. Then the king of satire composed some silly thing about me dialoging with Luther. A few moths ago, I attempted rational dialog with DA on an issue, only to get back the same stuff (then again, DA retracted some of his insults). Recently, he rewrote history on a CARM discussion we had, which of course I should’ve expected, as the first thing he ever wrote directed toward me was an edited dialog between us that appeared on his website.
So, I do not take him seriously. I have taken this approach for years, and it is reflected in my writing.
I point out his methods are not the methods of a professional apologist, but rather the work of a credential-less guy sitting behind a computer. But, this does not mean his work does not have an impact. Indeed, those committed to this new version of Catholic-pop-apologetics value his work, so I find value in reviewing it. My goal is always the same: show the bias, the poor methods, and point out his work on Luther should not be taken seriously. In other words, don’t quote him as if he’s any type of Catholic authority on Luther. for instance, note my recent posts on Luther and the Assumption. I challenge Mr. Armstrong to prove he actually did any meaningful research on this topic. I say he didn’t, but probably copied down some stuff from an old biased article. Look up what Luther said on the Assumption? Why, that’s just being mean!
I don’t claim to be anything but a layman- but this doesn’t mean I shouldn’t check his facts, or any facts for that matter. I heard one of my favorite pastors quote a Luther story in a sermon a few moths ago, and I politely challenged him to provide evidence for it, he could not.
If you want to dialog with him, go right ahead. I suggest always checking his facts and methods.
Regards,
James
James,
Actually, I’m starting to see exactly what everyone has been talking about with DA. I’m still going to post my response to his work, since I’m about halfway done and I’ve worked very hard on it. But I don’t expect him to actually reply to me since he’s already hinted that I’m a waste of his time. *sigh*
DA really is starting to head toward a meltdown.