Difficulties in Replying to DA

There are several notable difficulties in replying to Dave Armstrong, not the least of which being his uncanny ability to ramble on and on about nothing in particular. The fluff in his posts is absolutely unreal.

In responding to his argument that the Vicar of Christ is not a blasphemous title, I have come across a gross example of fluff. DA claims that “disciple” and “vicar” are “not far in meaning” from each other.

Looking at the same dictionary entry that DA was using, Merriam-Webster online, we can see that the definition of “vicar” is as follows:

1: one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy2: an ecclesiastical agent: as a: a Church of England incumbent receiving a stipend but not the tithes of a parish b: a member of the Episcopal clergy or laity who has charge of a mission or chapel c: a member of the clergy who exercises a broad pastoral responsibility as the representative of a prelate (source)

The definition of “disciple” is as follows:

1: one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another: as a: one of the twelve in the inner circle of Christ’s followers according to the Gospel accounts b: a convinced adherent of a school or individual 2capitalized : a member of the Disciples of Christ founded in the United States in 1809 that holds the Bible alone to be the rule of faith and practice, usually baptizes by immersion, and has a congregational polity (source)

These two words have nothing in common. A disciple is someone who is a convinced pupil of another, while a vicar is someone who shares in the authority of a prelate. They are different concepts and I hardly see any similarity between the two.

But this is the type of fluff that becomes a convincing argument in DA’s mind. This is one example of the voluminous chaff through which a person responding to Mr. Armstrong must sort to get to the meat of the argument.

Words in English are precise, and are chosen to convey something specific. No convergence was ever meant or implied between the words “vicar” and “disciple.” Dave needs to head to the book store and get himself a copy of On Writing Well by William Zinsser and carefully read the chapters on Simplicity, Clutter, and Words before he constructs his next “paper.”

2 Comments so far

  1. Dave Armstrong on September 30, 2007

    Okay; if this is an indication of what is to come, then I’ve decided not to waste any more time on your nonsense. This was James White’s issue in the first place. If he wants to reply to my counter-arguments, and defend his for a change, then I’ll deal with him, but I’m not obliged to waste time with members of his fan club’s attempts to defend his goofy ideas. I did the same with “Turretinfan” when he tried to rescue White’s arguments because the Great Man was too (I’ll be charitable) busy to do so.

    Have fun, then. I ain’t the guy to respond to you. I’m not interested in half-baked James Swan-type “arguments.” I don’t have the patience. I’m far more interested in real dialogue, such as one with two Lutheran pastors that I have just commenced.

    Mock all you like, if you wish. I’m used to it. It doesn’t make any difference whatsoever in what I decide to do. I have to be a responsible steward of my time under God, and to avoid foolish controversies if they are not necessary.

  2. TurretinFan on October 6, 2007

    Did anyone else notice that Dave took three paragraphs not to respond at all to any of the arguments?

    Keep the rebuttals coming, Cory. Don’t let Dave’s claim that he will ignore your response distract you from your defense of the truth.

    -Turretinfan

Leave a reply