Monday, February 15, 2010

Broken resolutions

Billy Birch:

I hate regrets. But as much I hate regrets, I also learn from them. For example, I think back over this year and remember how poorly I acted at times in debate toward other Christian brothers with whom I have disagreed. That has got to change. I cannot complain about others who act ungodly toward other Christians with whom they disagree and then behave in the same manner. I hate depravity.

As far as this blog is concerned for 2010, I intend on being more gracious with those who oppose my ideas and exegesis of Scripture...


http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2009/12/2009-and-still-learning.html

Billy Birch:

JAMES WHITE: THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK

Calvinist James White lies...Typical of White, he gave his spin on a philosophical notion of what Caner said...White actually posted Caner's words for everyone else to catch White in his lie. Honestly, given White's track record, we have come to expect no better of him.

White's tactics remind me of the far left political liberals. He has mastered spin tactics.

His perpetual rant of "Jesus 'actually' saves people in Calvinism" bit is so tired and worn out - to say nothing of silly.


http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2010/02/james-white-pot-calling-kettle-black.html

Since Billy is having such a hard time keeping his New Year’s resolution, perhaps some tech savvy Christian could record his resolution and email it to him in a downloadable format for his iPod.

Of course, it’s always possible that he’s a graduate of the Dave Armstrong School of Oaths, Vows, and Resolutions.

67 comments:

  1. So, pointing out White's absurd and inaccurate statement is somehow not in keeping with my New Year's resolution? Interesting assessment, Steve. How is what I wrote in any sense ungodly?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is the Dave Armstrong School of Oaths, Vows, and Resolutions the sister campus of the Tim Enloe School of Oaths, Vows, Resolutions, and Apologies?

    ReplyDelete
  3. If I may humbly offer:

    I prefer to think of theological opponents as "mistaken" or "in error" rather than "lying." Lying means that White knows the truth but nonetheless deliberately states falsehoods. Is this what you mean? And how can you know this for a fact? You can read his mind, know his heart? Can it not be that White's perception of Caner is wrong without being deliberately wrong?

    I should think a resolution toward charity would keep one especially vigilant when choosing words. I humbly suggest that choosing to view opponents in the best possible light goes a long way to fulfilling the spirit of your resolution, regardless of how your opponents seem to behave. We are only responsible that we ourselves "do it right," not the other guy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The only vow I've ever made, of course, is when I got married, and that is still going strong after 25 years.

    All the garbage spouted by anti-Catholics that I am a vow and oath breaker are bald-faced lies. Bearing false witness is a very serious sin, as Pilgrimsarbour stated above.

    And we'll see if this comment gets censored, too, like several others of mine have been on this site recently.

    ReplyDelete
  5. William Watson Birch said:

    So, pointing out White's absurd and inaccurate statement is somehow not in keeping with my New Year's resolution? Interesting assessment, Steve. How is what I wrote in any sense ungodly?

    Well, you said White is a liar. You said White has a track record of lying so you don't expect better from him. You said he's mastered spin tactics. You said his tactics remind you of the far left political liberals. These are hardly gracious words.

    If you had wanted to be gracious in keeping with your New Year's resolution, you could have said many things short of calling White a liar and a spin master akin to far left liberals. For example, you could've said White's words were poorly chosen. Or you could've said White made an illogical statement. Or you could've said White made a bad argument. Or you could've said maybe White misunderstood what Caner meant and so he inadvertently glossed Caner's position. Or you could've said maybe White had a slip of the tongue in this particular moment.

    In other words, you could've said a number of different things short of calling White a constant liar who has mastered the art of spin and reminds you of far left political liberals. If you had, it would've been more gracious than what you did end up saying about White.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I did NOT say that White had a track record "of lying," you put those words in my mouth.

    And as far as "gracious words" are concerned, what does that say about the authors of Triablogue, Patrick? You men have been ANYTHING but gracious to me!

    If what I've written about White is ungodly, then what does that say about the authors of Triablogue?

    ReplyDelete
  7. What does "track record" mean because it sure looks like you are implying that Dr. White has a track record of lying?

    Also, what the guys at Triablogue write is irrelevant to this since it was you who wrote the resolution. I refer you to Pilgrimsarbour's comment and ask if you think it true.

    It seems that you should admit you went against your stated resolution and move on. Trying to play the "well you guys do it too" gambit seems weak and shallow.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ben,

    It's more of the pot calling the kettle black. The authors of Triablogue are lecturing me on how to graciously respond to my theological opponents when they are not gracious to theirs.

    Pilgrimsarbour writes:

    Lying means that White knows the truth but nonetheless deliberately states falsehoods. Is this what you mean? And how can you know this for a fact? You can read his mind, know his heart?

    White himself stated that Caner had lied, and then White said that Caner believes that "if you believe that Christ's death actually saves anyone, that view comes from the devil" (Youtube video, 29:57). But Caner never said that. White spun his own take on Caner's words and then claimed (lied) that Caner was implying that.

    I don't think that calling someone's argument "silly" or "absurd" is ungodly. And if by Triablogue's standards it is ungodly, then they are themselves admitting to being ungodly, and have no right to instruct anyone else on how to be gracious. So, I don't think that I have violated my resolution, and will not just move on.

    ReplyDelete
  9. WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:

    "It's more of the pot calling the kettle black. The authors of Triablogue are lecturing me on how to graciously respond to my theological opponents when they are not gracious to theirs."

    We're merely holding you to your own standards.

    "And if by Triablogue's standards it is ungodly, then they are themselves admitting to being ungodly, and have no right to instruct anyone else on how to be gracious."

    I didn't endorse your standards. It wasn't my resolution.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And I don't think I've violated those standards.

    ReplyDelete
  11. WWB,

    I was trying to get you to see what Pilgrimsarbour wrote in the second paragraph.

    To my knowledge you are the one that openly posted this resolution and by doing it in such a public forum it encourages people to try to keep you to it. The claim that the guys at Triablogue act ungodly bears no relevance to the resolution you made. Also, I would offer up that the minute you made the public resolution you opened it up to have anyone and everyone hold you to it. The person pointing out the violation of your own resolution does not obligate them in any way to live up to or by the resolution that you gave yourself.

    Again, let me point you to the second paragraph and ask if you would not agree with it

    I should think a resolution toward charity would keep one especially vigilant when choosing words. I humbly suggest that choosing to view opponents in the best possible light goes a long way to fulfilling the spirit of your resolution, regardless of how your opponents seem to behave. We are only responsible that we ourselves "do it right," not the other guy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. WILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:

    "And I don't think I've violated those standards."

    Naturally–since your standards amount to double standards. You're a typical Arminian publican who only likes those who like you.

    "And as far as 'gracious words' are concerned, what does that say about the authors of Triablogue, Patrick? You men have been ANYTHING but gracious to me!"

    You conveniently forget that you initiated all this when you launched an unprovoked attack on Tblog, which Victor Reppert plugged. And in that unprovoked attack you used very harsh language, to the point of questioning our salvation.

    Then as now, I merely pointed out your double standards.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:

    "All the garbage spouted by anti-Catholics that I am a vow and oath breaker are bald-faced lies. Bearing false witness is a very serious sin, as Pilgrimsarbour stated above."

    Actually, these are easily documentable allegations.

    "And we'll see if this comment gets censored, too, like several others of mine have been on this site recently."

    Some of your comments from a previous thread were deleted because, true to form, you wanted to change the subject from substance to a never-ending discussion of your all-time favorite topic–Dave Armstrong.

    However, the rest of us don't share your self-infatuation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually, these are easily documentable allegations.

    Do it, then, liar. You and your cronies have been corrected on this so many times you can't possibly not know that it is a lie.

    Of course, I am assuming you actually know the essential difference between a vow and a resolution. With your record of sophistry and slander, that may be a very charitable, presumptuous assumption indeed.

    Assuming that, now all you have to do is go to my blog, use the search function, and find any instance where I have ever made a "vow" or an "oath" (apart from my marriage), and have violated it.

    I currently have 2559 papers posted. My blog is fully searchable. Certainly if I have made some imaginary "vow" or "oath" and have broken it, it is easy as pie to document. But for some strange reason, every time this scurrilous accusation is made, it never is documented.

    Some of your comments from a previous thread were deleted because, true to form, you wanted to change the subject from substance to a never-ending discussion of your all-time favorite topic–Dave Armstrong. However, the rest of us don't share your self-infatuation.

    Right; just like now, eh Steve? I have made the subject myself, out of the blue. I came here and wanted to talk about myself. I didn't come here and comment on your ridiculous blog because you have again lied about a simple matter of fact. You didn't bring up my name, I did. It's 1984 and doublespeak all over again.

    I have no right whatsoever to protest against the lie, even though I know it to be untrue, since it involves me.

    If I don't respond, the lie goes out (for the umpteenth time now) unopposed, and this is a form of gossip and bearing false witness. If I respond, then you use your usual tactic of diverting the discussion to the usual nonsense that I am full of myself, simply because I don't put up with lying that has no relation to fact.

    Either way, you "win." But in reality, you have lost, because lying never does anyone any good. You are the one who has to stand accountable to God for lying.

    The best you can do is pull up the old 2001 half tongue-in-cheek quote from me that White and others have used. This was, of course, a resolution, and I obviously changed my mind. That proves nothing whatever. All it proves is that I changed my mind. Big wow. That's a universe away from breaking a vow or an oath under God.

    Mr. Birch is now defending himself against your charges, so obviously he must be a narcissist, too. When Edward Reiss (whom I have defended against your slanders) protested against your relentless calumnies, he was full of himself, as well. It is your standard reply to anyone who disagrees with your Profound Wisdom. It goes beyond your anti-Catholicism. Those two guys ain't Catholics, but they are fair game simply because they disagreed with you.

    You can delete this if you like. It won't make any difference. I'll still put it up on my blog, and I get just as many hits as you do, so folks will be made aware once again that you have chosen the path of deliberately lying, because it is in the service of your ongoing attacks against me: the one who is "evil" and who has an "evil character." Anything goes against the EVIL person, right Steve? NT ethics no longer apply: they have no relevance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Some of your comments from a previous thread were deleted because, true to form, you wanted to change the subject from substance to a never-ending discussion of your all-time favorite topic–Dave Armstrong.

    This is a lie as well. Here is some of what actually was deleted (because I noted it at the time). Let's see if you delete this as well, and pretend that it was just me talking about myself (as you think is all that I do). I described it in a post of mine:

    ------------

    Just now, I noticed that he deleted a reply I made responding to an atheist, who decried the Christian infighting (i.e., relentless attacks on Catholics, including myself) on Hays' blog. He had written:

    "Atheists have no need to point out the supposed foolishness of Christianity: you guys do a great job of illustrating it yourself.

    "I feel like I'm reading playground taunting games."

    I wholeheartedly agreed, said that I decried it as much as he did and was trying to oppose it by condemning it, but that it is easy to get pulled down in the mud, when you try to pull someone out of a mud pit. I said that I had had many pleasant conversations with atheists, but could never manage to do so with anti-Catholics, because of the combination of ignorance, stubbornness, and hostility. I also stated that I would bet good money that his own ethical standards were considerably higher than Hays' own low standards, as proven by the latter's conduct on his blog. I predicted that this comment would make me even more unpopular on the blog than I already was.

    Hays confirmed that by hitting the delete button . . . :-) :-)

    I have now noticed that several other comments of mine are missing.

    --------------------

    That was a criticism of YOU and your lamentable tactics and ethics, not "talking about myself."

    This is part of what you chose to delete. Now you have to even revise that history and lie about the actual facts of the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I can't help noticing that Armstrong always "refutes" the charge of self-obsession by generating reams of self-obsessive denials.

    ReplyDelete
  17. William Watson Birch said:

    I did NOT say that White had a track record "of lying," you put those words in my mouth.

    1. I'll just quote what you said: "Calvinist James White lies...Typical of White, he gave his spin on a philosophical notion of what Caner said...White actually posted Caner's words for everyone else to catch White in his lie. Honestly, given White's track record, we have come to expect no better of him."

    2. But you said White is a liar. That alone is less gracious than other things you might've said about White short of calling him a liar.

    And as far as "gracious words" are concerned, what does that say about the authors of Triablogue, Patrick? You men have been ANYTHING but gracious to me!

    If what I've written about White is ungodly, then what does that say about the authors of Triablogue?


    1. Even if this were true, it doesn't change the fact that you've been less than gracious toward White.

    2. Also, I'm a Tblog member. But I believe this post contains only the second time I've ever directly commented on something you've said. In fact, the first time I commented on something you said I noted your graciousness toward another person (but lack of graciousness toward us). In fact, both of my comments toward you thus far (and this third comment too) haven't been ungracious toward you, but mainly pointing out how you could've been more gracious toward someone else (e.g. White). So when you say "You men have been ANYTHING but gracious to me!" I'm not quite sure it's true since I'm a Tblog member and I don't think I've ever said ungracious words toward you - unless you think it's ungracious to point out that you could've been more gracious toward another person (which would then stop things like constructive criticism).

    Likewise, I don't think other Tblog members have necessarily taken the opportunity to comment on things you've said in the past either. For example, as far as I'm aware, I don't think Jason Engwer has ever commented on anything you've said. If that's true, then he hasn't taken the opportunity to be gracious or ungracious toward you.

    3. That said, I don't necessarily think it's wrong to be ungracious toward someone. As Steve pointed out, this was your New Year's resolution, not mine or his or anyone else's.

    ReplyDelete
  18. God knows I'm not perfectly consistent in dealing with people, either online or in the real world. Anyone reading my blog would undoubtedly find somewhere an example of where I'm being unnecessarily offensive, rude or unfair to someone or about someone. And that goes for my real-world relationships as well, of course.

    That doesn't change the fact that a standard has been adopted, and that is to be as charitable as possible. And the fact that I'm inconsistent (human=sinner) does not mean that the standard should be abandoned.

    The standard is not to be abandoned because the guy I'm talking to isn't living up to it. Again, I repeat, I am only responsible for myself to live up to any standard I set for myself. And praise be to God that He is the one who sets the standards for our living as disciples of Christ.

    We must not put ourselves in the position of justifying our sin because the other guy has sinned against us. It's just an excuse to abandon a standard we may find difficult or even odious. After all, we must not be an "enabler" to someone who lies. I know. I think about these things. Should I follow Christ, apologise to someone for my bad behaviour? Or should I think about the psychology of it and not apologise so as to keep from being an enabler of someone else's bad behaviour?

    Praise God, this is His, and by default as His disciples it becomes our own, standard:

    Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all (Romans 12:17).

    See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone (1 Thessalonians 5:15).

    Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

    Interesting that we find this three times in the Bible, if not more (cf. Proverbs 20:22). God is, as Sproul points out, Holy, Holy, Holy. This is the only attribute that has this heightened emphasis in the Scriptures. We should consider how His instructions to us not to revile in return when we are reviled are, in fact, a reflection of, indeed the very essence of, His holy nature and character.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It appears Dave Armstrong has a significantly different view of what constitutes an oath than what Jesus and James did.

    Let's play semantics. Suppose we agree that Armstrong's only vow he ever made was to his wife (note he has apparently never made a vow to God). He still repeatedly claims to be done with anti-Catholics and promises to never interact with them again because it's a waste of time, etc. I see that Steve Hays is on Dave Armstrong's page of Anti-Catholics (and somehow even *I* got there). Thus, Armstrong has said he would not interact with either Steve or me (amongst many others). Which makes it highly ironic that he's complaining that we deleted his comments. (How did we delete that which wasn't there to begin with?)

    In any case, Armstrong is here now, which also disproves his promise to be done with Anti-Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Liar liar, pants on fire.

    What's a fireman to do?

    Let's be fair, you guys! Dr. White did use the "l" word and did say he lied!

    But, let's also remember, those open minded, that he went ahead and proved he lied and established, at least from where I sit, "he lied".

    Now, if he lied, which it seems clear he did basis Dr. White's evidences, then what am I to make of that?

    Was that less than a gracious observation?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I can't help noticing that Armstrong always "refutes" the charge of self-obsession by generating reams of self-obsessive denials.

    Right, Steve. You love playing this game, I know. Anyone with an IQ above that of a pencil eraser sees right through it.

    I still await your compelling proof of the extraordinary charge that I have supposedly broken a vow. Where is it? You said it was easy to prove. Do it, then, or stand exposed as a liar (and an intellectual coward as well).

    I already know you are a liar where I am concerned. I'm only doing this to prove it to everyone else who believes the claptrap you regularly churn out about other human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It appears Dave Armstrong has a significantly different view of what constitutes an oath than what Jesus and James did.

    Let's play semantics. Suppose we agree that Armstrong's only vow he ever made was to his wife . . .


    Okay, Peter, I'll play your game, too.

    What is your position on what the Bible says about vows and oaths? What exactly are they? Are they different from resolutions or a "promise" (your word)? Is there any essential or qualitative difference there at all?

    I am assuming you are familiar with dictionaries and their purpose, and also the fact that different words DO have different meanings. And I think you know what a Bible dictionary is. Utilize these resources. I think you have a lot to gain from them.

    I know fine distinctions and nuance are not your strong suit but we gotta start somewhere.

    You say I have made what you and Steve describe as a "vow" or an "oath" of a particular nature. Okay; where is it? Please produce this for me. 2559 papers online. 19 books: many of which are heavily excerpted online or can be accessed by Google Reader. No problem at all to prove this. Or do you not know how to operate a simple Google search, either?

    If you can't, why do you make the charge? If you can, why the delay? Prove your point before the world once and for all. Put up or shut up. Empty words and lies don't cut it anymore, even by the already rock-bottom anti-Catholic ethical standards.

    If you're dense enough to actually want to jump on this bandwagon of a trumped-up charge that neither you nor Steve can document, then you, too, can be exposed as a liar. The choice is up to you. I sure wouldn't want to be in your shoes right now.

    How ironic, given the original intent of this very thread.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh, one more thing for Peter's sake. I believe he was the one who claimed here (being one of my biggest fans and lifelong supporters) that I delete lots of material in the cynical attempt to hide my past statements.

    Yep; 2559 papers posted. Obviously I have heavily utilized the delete button.

    But you obviously have me mixed up with Steve Hays. He is the king of the delete button lately.

    You may think I have made such a "vow" and then covered it up by getting rid of the "evidence." There is also such a thing as Internet Archive. I'd be happy to dig up any old paper of mine you remember seeing in the past. Most of them are still available over on that excellent resource. In fact, one of your anti-Catholic buddies uses that resource quite a bit to find old papers of mine in areas where I have specifically stated that my views in one area have become fine-tuned and somewhat modified over time. He does it; so could you.

    If you can't figure out how to use that, either, then I'll be more than delighted to aid you to find any old paper of mine that your heart desires, so you can locate my imaginary "vows" that you clowns regularly refer to in an attempt to smear my name.

    You guys need to come up with your "proof" once and for all, that I am a huge liar, vow-breaker, along with being "evil" and nuts and all the rest that you nattering nabobs say and believe.

    Here is your golden opportunity to absolutely prove one of your bogus charges and lies. Seems like you would jump at the opportunity. I am even offering to help you do it!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Here is Pike making his "delete" charge, just for the record (I know I'm "weird" around here insofar as I actually document things, rather than assert them without evidence):

    ----------------

    Comment of 1/21/2010 11:28 PM:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/dave-armstrong-responds-to-dave.html#5387274960480695061

    Armstrong's already "disappeared" a bunch of stuff that he posted on his own blog, and now we get to pretend it never happened (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

    It shows his caliber anyway. He writes knee-jerk screeds condemning other people for what he does himself, and after his hypocrisy is pointed out to him he apparently feels enough guilt to obscure the evidence, but not enough to actually change his behavior.

    ----------------

    Again, Pike has it exactly wrong. Steve Hays is the one who has been doing this.

    I not only not delete Hay's rantings; I help to broadcast them to the world on my site. I'm doing him a great service!

    His pearls of wisdom in saying, e.g., 732 times (in many different ways and styles) that that Edward Reiss or Scott Windsor are liars get plenty of coverage on my site!

    When he says that I am "evil" and of "evil character" I put that on my site, so folks can benefit from learning those facts about my character. It's the very opposite of deleting.

    I even have a video of Howlin' Wolf singing Evil in honor of Hays' profound observations.

    I'll be documenting this whole thread, too. So it is the furthest thing from covering up anything.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well,

    because I take offense at Dave Armstrong smearing my intelligence, my IQ is just a smidgen above that of a pencil eraser, I thought I would count just how many times in this thread Dave Armstrong made reference or makes reference or implies something about or alludes something to "himself".

    Just before his last post I quit counting because I can't count that high and there were by then over 60 times he did so.

    Hmmmmmm, Dave, maybe Steve has a point to saying this about you:::>

    Steve:
    Some of your comments from a previous thread were deleted because, true to form, you wanted to change the subject from substance to a never-ending discussion of your all-time favorite topic–Dave Armstrong.

    However, the rest of us don't share your self-infatuation.

    Me again:
    But, the biting irony of it is this paragraph, Dave:::>

    DM:
    You say I have made what you and Steve describe as a "vow" or an "oath" of a particular nature. Okay; where is it? Please produce this for me. 2559 papers online. 19 books: many of which are heavily excerpted online or can be accessed by Google Reader.

    Me again:
    Is not that a direct, "look at me and my accomplishments" statement about yourself, of course, distinguishing yourself as someone far more important than Steve or Patrick?

    Isn't it, Dave?

    Now, go back and see every comment Steve has made in here. Count how many times he makes reference to himself, if you will? What amazes me most is rarely is he creating a situation about himself. Instead he is moving a reasonable argument forward based on someone else's position, that gives sight to us dumb folk in here with an IQ of about a smidgen over that of a pencil eraser!

    Oh, what is a pencil eraser suppose to be used for anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Still waiting for the documentation of the charge. It ain't rocket science. I say I have 2500 papers online not to puff myself up, but to make the point that it is SUPER-EASY to find such a thing IF I ever said it. Any fool could see the point there. But because the playbook dictates that everything I say must be from pride and narcissism, further dumb remarks are made. Rationality and factuality are thrown to the wind.

    You guys can play games and obfuscate and engage in obscurantism and evasion and sophistry all day long, but it won't change the fact that you are duty-bound to PRODUCE THE GOODS to prove that I have supposedly ever broken a vow made under God, with all that that entails.

    Your easiest way out is to simply admit that you don't know the difference between vows, oaths, and resolutions. But pride will probably dictate that even that route is unthinkable, Instead, it'll just be more personal attacks on my person.

    Anyone can see through that. If you guys want to dig your own grave and set the noose to hang yourselves, be my guest. That doesn't further your cause.

    The choir will cheer you on no matter what you do or say. But any halfway neutral observer whom you hope to convince will see the nature of what so often takes place in this sewer of a blog.

    Even atheists can see that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Almost two years ago (February 23, 2008) I called it: [Dave had written] "I'll be ignoring you and other anti-Catholics (barring exceptional circumstances; particularly if it involves defending someone else from anti-Catholic smear campaigns)."

    When he breaks his near-promise to ignore his opponents, I expect him first to rely on the "exceptional circumstances" portion of his statement, and then later deny that this was ever a promise in the first place. Let's see what time will tell.


    (my report)

    ReplyDelete
  28. And that is what you call a vow or an oath? Just for the record . . . You, too, don't know the difference?

    I'm here now because I was again called a liar publicly, and you guys are attempting to smear William Birch, just as you did with Edward Reiss and Scott Windsor (so it's now four of us just in the last month). And that is exactly what I said, didn't I?:

    "particularly if it involves defending someone else from anti-Catholic smear campaigns."

    Likewise, I temporarily suspended my policy of not debating theology with anti-Catholics (which I have been faithfully following for over two years now), when I took on Jason Engwer, because David Waltz had cited his influence as one reason why he now rejects conciliar infallibility. That was more than enough good reason.

    Rules are made for man, not man for rules. Jesus said this about rescuing the sheep in the pit on the Sabbath. The legalistic person would let the sheep suffer, but the compassionate person recognizes that the Sabbath was made for man, not vice versa.

    Any man has a right to defend his name against public lies and character assassination and defamation. I can hardly not talk about myself when the very charge in question is whether I am a vow-breaker or not. How can I deny the charge, yet do so without talking about myself?

    It would be like saying, "The Lions are the worst team in the history of football" (a claim I would be quite prepared to accept!) without talking about the Lions.

    Yet if I mention myself at all, then I am supposedly this huge narcissist.

    This is why I don't play your game by the self-serving, lopsided, double standard rules that you guys set for the game, so you can continue on in your smear campaigns.

    The first considerations for everyone ought to be truth and love. The truth has to do with what the facts of the matter are. If the charge is true, it can be proven. Love involves treating others with charity and not accusing them falsely, without even proper reason to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It's always double standards with you guys. TAO wants to cite an old post of mine? I'm delighted that he did so, because in that very post:

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/02/2008-don-rickles-chronic-insulter-of.html

    . . . I cited some resolutions ("vows") that Bishop James White made. Why is it that HE is not called a "vow-breaker" on the same grounds that you claim I am one?

    Here is what the good bishop wrote:

    "I have done all I could since then in light of certain aspects of your behavior to avoid interaction like the plague.

    "My website contains nothing about you for that very reason. . . . I apologize for even considering the idea of having any contact.

    "I have to trust God's Spirit to lead His people as He sees fit. I have had a number of folks contact me about your posting of my letters and actually warn me against "casting pearls before swine" in doing what I am doing even now. I had three people say to me this morning, "You are wasting your time." I will have to accept their counsel after this response.

    "Mr. Armstrong, I have no interest, whatsoever, in continuing this with you. I don't like you, and I don't believe you like me. Until a few weeks ago I had followed the path of wisdom and avoided every entanglement with you. I erred in moving from that path. . . .

    "Continuing to attempt to reason with you is likewise foolish: if you write an angry e-mail, like yesterday, and I reply to it, the next day you'll use the calm, rational response, and upbraid me for being nasty. No matter what I do, the end is the same. I knew this years ago. My memory must be failing or something for even making the attempt.

    "I'm going to ask you to join me in promising to stay as far away from each other as possible. I'm not asking you to not respond on your own website to what I write or doing whatever you want to do when speaking, etc. I am talking about personal interaction. Stay out of #prosapologian. Don't write to me. Don't ask to do dialogues, debates, or anything else. You just do your thing, and I'll do mine. OK?"

    [White later challenged me to do an oral debate in 2007; in fact he did it again right before he wrote the above; when I declined, this was his "sour grapes" response]

    This was from personal correspondence, and was dated 12 January 2001. Further details can be obtained by following the link in my paper above. We all know how White has studiously avoided mentioning my name or dealing with me since that time, over nine years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ah, Steve, Patrick, Jason, could one of you guys forward your playbook to me so I can play in the game with you according to it?

    Dave,

    hmmmm, what can I say? Well, the internet is an unusually user friendly usurper.

    For instance, take Titus's instructions instructed by Paul to him:::>

    Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
    Tit 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,
    Tit 3:11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

    Weighing carefully my exchanges with you in here and at other blogs, yours too, which have been few, taking counsel from Paul or Titus, I would have to agree that you are self-condemned?

    In my Church family and fellowship, you would have been ejected long ago.

    And might I say, having visited with Cardinal McCormick at the Washington D.C. Vatican, in the manner and comity of spirit of our visit together, I suppose, if he or any of his sort there were privy to you and your antics hereon this blog, they might send missives immediately to your parish Priest and ask them to practice Paul's admonition to Titus and eject you outright, or at a minimum censure you, seeing it is just a disgrace how you carry on in here? It is appalling!

    What don't you think about that?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I've written about all this nonsense several times. There is no mystery as to my positions on it, and I've shown time and again that I never broke a "vow" at any time:

    James White's Reply to My Recent Critique / The "Vow Breaker" Bum Rap (4-4-07)

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/04/james-whites-reply-to-my-recent.html

    Clarification of Why I No Longer Attempt Debate With Anti-Catholic Protestants (7-4-09)

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/clarification-of-why-i-no-longer.html

    My Basis For Refusing to Debate Anti-Catholics Any Longer Exactly the Same as James White's, For Refusing to Debate Certain Catholics (7-7-09)

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-basis-for-refusing-to-debate-anti.html

    In the latter paper I noted, for example, how James White used to say he would never debate Dr. Art Sippo, because of objections to his behavior. But sure enough, later on he did challenge him to debate, just as he did to me, twice (2001 and 2007) after he said he would never do so in 1995 because I was an insufferable dumbbell: so sez Mr. White.

    I've done nothing that James White hasn't done himself, except that I am consistent with my principles, and I don't have to lie about other fellow Christians in order to live by them. I merely changed my mind on one extreme, half-humorous statement I made in 2001 that went too far. So what. James White has done far worse than that. I can't absolutely avoid all interaction whatever with anti-Catholics (sub-debate stuff) as a Catholic apologist.
    E.g., right now in documenting how you guys lie in order to supposedly further your goals, I'm "dealing" with you. But I am not debating theology. And that is what I decided to stop doing in October 2007. This is an ethical discussion, and an exposure of the almost non-existent NT ethics of anti-Catholics, where it comes to treating others, even fellow Protestants (Reiss, Birch et al; White's treatment of Caner, Craig, etc.; just about anyone who has a principled disagreement with him).

    But I have engaged in an actual debate only once (recently with Jason Engwer, under special exempted circumstances) since October 2007 when I decided I was through with attempted debate, after my challenge to debate in a chat room about the definition of Christianity was turned down seven times by six anti-Catholics, including TAO and Gene "Troll" Bridges (twice by Bishop White). That was the final straw. If even that fundamental premise-issue can;t be discussed, there is no hope for any intelligent discourse. This farcical "discussion" proves that yet again.

    It's probably the best time-management decision I have ever made since starting my full-time apologetics ministry in December 2001.

    ReplyDelete
  32. There's no pleasing Dave.

    Dave then: "Still waiting for the documentation of the charge."

    Dave now: "TAO wants to cite an old post of mine?"

    Dave put it this way "there is no hope for any intelligent discourse" and perhaps we ought to leave it at that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. And for a second time I ask: how does this thing you cite prove that I broke a VOW? Recall that the insinuation in this instance and many times through the years is that I have broken a VOW, not just a promise or a resolution.

    You haven't shown that. I have shown that what I've done is not one white different from what Bishop White himself has done.

    But you want to ignore that. I know why you do, because you have no case.

    You keep proving that the charge is groundless. Is this your "evidence"?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jesus said, "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one" (Mt 5:37).

    Armstrong said: "Let your 'yes' be maybe or maybe not."

    ReplyDelete
  35. But, I hasten to point out, that, it just must be may be not or not be maybe but it is not just not! I wish it would be, but, maybe it will be, maybe, maybe not?

    I think you should just think about the Elect Angel; they know what they are doing!

    ReplyDelete
  36. DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:

    “And for a second time I ask: how does this thing you cite prove that I broke a VOW? Recall that the insinuation in this instance and many times through the years is that I have broken a VOW, not just a promise or a resolution.”

    I see that literacy isn’t your strong suit. This is what I actually said (verbatim), in the very post you presume to comment on:

    “…the Dave Armstrong School of Oaths, Vows, and Resolutions.”

    Then there’s the title of my post (Hint! Hint!).

    Of course I realize that you like to compartmentalize the obligation to keep your word into different, airtight categories with various escape-hatches.

    ReplyDelete
  37. DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:

    “It's always double standards with you guys.”

    “This is an ethical discussion, and an exposure of the almost non-existent NT ethics of anti-Catholics, where it comes to treating others, even fellow Protestants (Reiss, Birch et al; White's treatment of Caner, Craig, etc.; just about anyone who has a principled disagreement with him).”

    So if we apply the very same standard to fellow Protestants, then that’s a double standard?

    ReplyDelete
  38. not one white different

    Should be "not one whit different." Freudian slip. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jesus said, "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one" (Mt 5:37).

    Armstrong said: "Let your 'yes' be maybe or maybe not."


    Not at all. I refuse to believe that you can't comprehend the distinctions to be made here. I just don't believe it. Your personal dislikes blind you, if you are blinded at all. That is the most charitable interpretation possible.

    Jesus was not simply about law and legalism (that was the Pharisees' thing); He was about intelligent application of law in conjunction with justice and mercy and love of God and neighbor: the "weightier elements" of the Law. hence, like I said, He recognized that there can be exceptions to the rule(s): rescuing a sheep on the Sabbath if necessary; eating the showbread, like David did, even though only the priests were technically allowed to do so.

    There are perfectly reasonable exceptions to rules. My own "rule" was self-imposed to begin with. So I made an exception to it. Everyone understands that. It is only anti-Catholics who have to smear the Catholic no matter what he does, who don't understand it.

    Then there is the essential difference between vows and oaths on one hand, and resolutions and promises on the other. Reasonable, intelligent folk understand that exceptions and even reversals can be made in the latter instances, whereas oaths and vows are far more serious and binding, and don't allow for such reversals. That is true both in the biblical understanding and in the cultural / dictionary-level understanding. No one holds a person to a new year's resolution to lose 15 pounds, as if to not do it is a "lie" or "breaking a vow." That's why vows are so utterly serious in the first place, and made only after the utmost consideration.

    It's obvious to me (because these distinctions are so self-evident for anyone who does the least amount of study on it) that you guys want to deliberately blur the distinctions in the service of the smear campaign against Catholic apologists like myself.

    You have to find a way to discredit what we do, and indirectly, Catholicism (or Arminians or Lutherans or whoever else the target is at the moment), so you do whatever it takes, including lying. You know that "breaking a vow" sounds far more serious than "changing a resolution" or "changing one's mind on a former resolution" so you simply repeat the charge no matter how many times it has been refuted and exposed for what it is.

    Anything goes in service of "Mother Anti-Catholicism." Any lie against a Catholic or Catholicism is permitted because it is for a good cause. The ends justify the means.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Moreover, you wink at and ignore when people like James White make resolutions scarcely any different than my own and routinely breaks them as if they didn't exist. You wink and nod at his constant insults of others, and do not protest that. But as soon as one dare speak out against that, then it is Chicken Little.

    You wink at someone like TAO stating on White's own blog, about Steve Ray (on 4-10-09):

    "That makes you a liar. That's not an insult, that's not a personal attack, though it is a criticism of the way you've been acting. If we could clean up your act by giving you a nice fresh bar of antibacterial soap, we would, but the kind of truth-telling problem is a sin, and requires a stronger soap . . . clean up your act. Get right with Christ now. The soap that fullers used to use (think bleach) is not strong enough to remove your sins, . . ."

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3234

    Bishop James White can write about Dr. Art Sippo:

    Art Sippo Lies About Thursday's Debate (post title of 6-12-05)

    "I honestly hope Bill Rutland will write to him and rebuke him for posting such outrageous lies, I truly do. . . . This is an outrageous lie. There is not a shred of truth in it, and I can document it. Sippo, of course, cannot, but documenting his outrageous claims has never been one of his strong points anyway. . . . This alone exposes Sippo's lie . . . After posting this abject lie, . . . You can see Sippo's aversion to truth extends to his theology as well as his dishonest relating of past events. . . . The only sad part of all of this is that once again folks . . . will blindly believe whatever Sippo says, despite the fact he could never prove his allegations and we have all the documentation."

    [wow; how familiar that sounds!]

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=471

    White also goes after Bill Rutland (8-8-05):

    " It is sorta hard to avoid the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, behind that is the idea that "Hey, maybe we should have the freedom to say anything we want in this forum and no one should have the right to expose what we say, even when it involves blatant, documentable lies about others, in any other way." Sorta sounds like that is the idea, but let's hope not. . . . I simply refer the reader to the unanswered documentation of the lies posted by Sippo (he has never retracted them) and the sad collusion of Rutland with his personal attacks here."

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=594

    ReplyDelete
  41. So if we apply the very same standard to fellow Protestants, then that’s a double standard?

    You apply it to Arminians, and slander them without cause. But you won't apply the same supposed standards to real instances of Calvinist and anti-Catholic hypocrisy and sins of bearing false witness.

    The thing is to lie about and smear whoever disagrees with you: be they Catholic, Arminian, Lutheran, Orthodox, or three-toed, red-haired, blue-eyed Rastafarian dog catchers.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Methinks I am now really dumb and confused by the last few posts.

    Didn't DA say he wasn't going to do theology debates?

    What is this:::>

    "....E.g., right now in documenting how you guys lie in order to supposedly further your goals, I'm "dealing" with you. But I am not debating theology. And that is what I decided to stop doing in October 2007. This is an ethical discussion, and an exposure of the almost non-existent NT ethics of anti-Catholics, where it comes to treating others, even fellow Protestants (Reiss, Birch et al; White's treatment of Caner, Craig, etc.; just about anyone who has a principled disagreement with him)."


    Ok, fair enough and clear enough, no equivocation here, right? No maybes about it or am I just plain wrong?


    Then a few comments later, this:::>


    "....Jesus was not simply about law and legalism (that was the Pharisees' thing); He was about intelligent application of law in conjunction with justice and mercy and love of God and neighbor: the "weightier elements" of the Law. hence, like I said, He recognized that there can be exceptions to the rule(s): rescuing a sheep on the Sabbath if necessary; eating the showbread, like David did, even though only the priests were technically allowed to do so.".

    Honestly, have I lost my mind?

    So, Dave, you can put out this theological position in here above and call that "not debating"?


    Hmmmmmm?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I am wondering if these Words have any significance in here?

    Job 11:1 Then Zophar the Naamathite answered and said:
    Job 11:2 "Should a multitude of words go unanswered, and a man full of talk be judged right?
    Job 11:3 Should your babble silence men, and when you mock, shall no one shame you?

    and

    Pro 10:18 The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool.
    Pro 10:19 When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.
    Pro 10:20 The tongue of the righteous is choice silver; the heart of the wicked is of little worth.
    Pro 10:21 The lips of the righteous feed many, but fools die for lack of sense.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Then there’s the title of my post (Hint! Hint!).

    Of course I realize that you like to compartmentalize the obligation to keep your word into different, airtight categories with various escape-hatches.


    Now we have the sophistry and obscurantism of backing off the original accusation. Since I have easily shown that the charge itself is groundless by challenging the liars to back it up and prove it with something I ever said, now you retreat to word games and the pretense that I have not been accused of breaking vows in the first place.

    You know this not to be the case. It has been taking place for years. Eric Svendsen used this charge; James White often has; now TAO and Hays and Bridges and Pike have followed suit. It's the classic Big Lie: you simply repeat it enough times like a mantra and ignorant followers who trust your judgment will believe it. After all, it has been stated 179 times, right? It must be the truth! But when you and your fellow slanderers are called on it and challenged to put up and shut up, you can't do so, and have to retreat back to juvenile word games and sophistry.

    So, e.g., on this blog not long ago, official contributor Gene "Troll" Bridges wrote on 7-9-09:

    "You've also taken an oath to stop interacting with "anti-Catholics", and yet here you are wanting us to interact with you. I, for one, take the Law on making vows seriously, and I am not going to contribute to you sin before God in violating your word."

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/07/troll-feeding-time.html

    Ironically, Bridges knows full well what a real oath or vow is, because he also wrote about that on this blog (2-27-08):

    "From the Second London Confession:

    23. Lawful Oaths and Vows

    1. A lawful oath is an act of religious worship, in which the person swearing in truth, righteousness, and judgement, solemnly calls God to witness what he swears, and to judge him according to the truth or falsity of it.

    2. Only by the name of God can a righteous oath be sworn, and only if it is used with the utmost fear of God and reverence. Therefore, to swear vainly or rashly by the glorious and awesome name of God, or to swear by any other name or thing, is sinful, and to be regarded with disgust and detestation. But in matters of weight and moment, for the confirmation of truth, and for the ending of strife, an oath is sanctioned by the Word of God. . . .

    3. Whoever takes an oath sanctioned by the Word of God is bound to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and affirm or confess to nothing except that which he knows to be true. For by rash, false, and vain oaths, the Lord is provoked and because of them this land mourns.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 4. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words. without equivocation or mental reservation.

    5. A vow, which is not to be made to any creature but to God alone, is to be made and performed with all the utmost care and faithfulness."

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/pattersonian-anabaptist-roots-at-work.html

    Bishop James White wrote about me on 4-6-07:

    "He is not stable. He swings from pillar to post, and if we did, in fact, arrange a formal debate today, how could anyone trust that next week he won't have yet another change of heart, make another vow to avoid anti-Catholics, and bag out?"

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1906&catid=7

    TAO wrote on 7-12-09 (also on this blog):

    "he made the following vow: 'I'll be ignoring you and other anti-Catholics . . .' . . . since that vow was made. . . . But now the vow has morphed."

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/07/scripture-twisting-for-catholicism.html#2152306992407675768

    You play the same word-games, slipping back and forth between "vow" and "resolution" as if they were the same thing:

    "When he suspends a resolution, it’s only temporary. . . . yet he remains resolute in his punctilious fidelity to every solemn vow. His word is his bond. He never ever goes back on his word, except whenever he happens to go back on his word–which, however, is not to be confused with breaking a promise."

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/romes-pinocchio.html

    This is what liars do, of course. The equivocation and ambiguities and word-games and so forth . . . this is what Bill Clinton did, with his playing around with what "is" means. That's your game.

    My position, on the other hand, is very straightforward:

    1) A vow or oath made to and under God is far more serious than a mere self-imposed, self-referring resolution.

    2) I never made a vow concerning anti-Catholics.

    3) Yet I have been falsely accused of making such a vow.

    4) Even what I did do is constantly misrepresented as supposedly ruling out all interaction whatever, when in fact I stated I was done with actual debate with anti-Catholics.

    5) When I protest about being characterized as a vow-breaker, and challenge my accusers to put up or shut up and prove that I am guilty of this, they revert to the very sort of word games and obfuscation that they falsely accuse me of doing.

    Witness the present case. When called on his having charged -- with his buddies -- that I have broken a vow, you revise the history and pretends that you have only objected to my breaking resolutions.

    Just keep doing that, Steve. You're making a fool of yourself in front of everyone. Anyone with an ounce of fairness can observe what is going on here. You wouldn't have a prayer in a court case with a jury. They would see right through your nonsense and asinine word-games.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Steve Hays, too, knows what a real vow is, and he thinks that even a vow is not absolutely absolute, if there are mitigating circumstances (precisely what I have been saying with my reference to the sheep on the Sabbath and the showbread):

    "1.Vows are not moral absolutes. They are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end.

    "The end is the point of principle, whereas the means are pragmatic.

    "A process is not a moral absolute. It is not a value in itself. Rather, a process is a means to an end.

    "This is not a question of morality, but prudence.

    "2.Even in the case of moral absolutes, in a fallen world we may often be confronted with conflicting obligations. In that event, a higher duty overrules a lower duty. . . .

    "As I said before, vows are not moral absolutes.

    "1.The Mosaic law distinguishes between lawful and unlawful vows (e.g. Num 30)."

    (8-31-06)

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/social-conventions-moral-absolutes.html

    So we have the bizarre situation of Hays and others accusing me of breaking a vow. But Hays says sometimes vows can indeed be broken in extraordinary circumstances.

    My position is that vows are binding, apart from extremely extraordinary circumstances. But I have not made any vow concerning anti-Catholics, anyway. I have made resolutions. And they certainly can be changed and modified, as circumstances warrant.

    But Hays wants to deny that, so he continues on with his mocking, even though he has stated the above possibility of being non-binding, even about vows.

    Don't try to find moral or even logical consistency on this site . . . It's a lost cause.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It seems to me that there is no meeting of the minds between Dave and the Triabloguers as to the precise definitions of vows, oaths, resolutions and promises.

    See what Thesaurus.com* has to say about the word "vow." I have put in bold the various words in question that have come up in the combox:

    Main Entry: vow
    Part of Speech: noun
    Definition: promise

    Synonyms: affiance, assertion, asseveration, oath, pledge, profession, troth, word of honor

    Antonyms:
    breach, break

    Main Entry: vow
    Part of Speech: verb
    Definition: make a solemn promise

    Synonyms:
    affirm, assure, consecrate, covenant, cross one's heart, declare, dedicate, devote, give word of honor, pledge, plight, promise, swear, swear up and down, testify, undertake solemnly, vouch, warrant

    Antonyms:
    disavow

    The words vow, oath, promise all seem to carry the same meaning. The only word I don't see here is resolution which upon further study doesn't connect any of the three words above to it, but carries the meaning declaration, determination, intention.

    While I think Dave's precise delineations of the three words are overwrought in relation to modern English usage, it seems to me likely that he had previously made a resolution (determination, intention) to not interact with "anti-Catholics" (unless by stated exception necessity) but not a promise, oath or vow.

    * Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
    Copyright © 2010 by the Philip Lief Group.

    ReplyDelete
  48. THANK YOU.

    What a breath of fresh air. Whew . . .

    And that is all I have been saying. But my friends here can't admit this simple fact because it goes against the playbook and spinning talking points for "Dear ol' Dave."

    Admitting that a Catholic may be right around here (about anything) and that his critics may be wrong is itself a naughty no-no.

    You, being a very fair-minded reasonable guy, can declare the obvious. Kudos and bravo to you for having the courage to do it in this environment.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I do think that "promise" is more like an oath or vow than a resolution is, so upon reflection and seeing the above definitions I agree with pilgrim on that. I just threw it out in the midst of 10,000 words on this mess today.

    All along I have stated that I made resolutions (the most recent in October 2007). The one in 2001 was too strong and I later changed my mind on it. Since it never was a vow or oath, there is no sin in that.

    Besides, as I've shown, I have acted hardly any differently from James White, who said he was through with me in 2001, too.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The person who is truly utterly confused about the proper distinctions between oaths and resolutions, is Eric Svendsen. In a post of 14 January 2005, devoted to blasting me up and down as a liar and oath-breaker, he shows an incredible ignorance of the distinctions, since he uses the two terms interchangeably (talking about the same exact thing, using these terms):

    http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/jonathan-prejean-distinguishes-himself.html

    OATH

    1) Here are the statements from his many “solemn oaths” again.

    2) If you don't think this constitutes a clear violation of a solemn oath, . . .

    3) DA has adequately demonstrated that his oaths are meaningless.

    4) Or are you in such a defensive posture that you fear "all would be lost" if you did the right thing by calling DA to task for his oath-breaking practices?

    RESOLUTION or RESOLVE

    1) Did DA “keep this resolve” . . .

    2) Those were the terms of his resolution.

    3) He has broken that resolution over and over again.

    4) Indeed, the resolution itself was . . .

    BOTH

    1) . . . a solemn oath resulting from a “RESOLUTION STATEMENT”—let alone three identical solemn oaths resulting from three separate “resolution statements” taken over a period of five short years!

    He also used "swear" and "swore" once each: which to most ears, I think, have that feel of the courtroom or the "oath of office" and so forth.

    We can only conclude, then, that Dr. Svendsen is unfamiliar with these basic definitions that were helpfully presented above. He doesn't know the difference between a resolution and a "solemn oath."

    Furthermore, Jason Engwer, on Svendsen's blog, described my statements as "resolutions" (not oaths or vows):

    "Prejean's decision to "retire" probably is about as lasting as Dave Armstrong's "resolutions"."

    (8-21-05)

    http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/jonathan-prejean-and-missing-case-for.html

    "As I said in a previous article, Jonathan Prejean's recent claim to be "retiring" from "proselytizing" was about as credible as the "resolutions" of Dave Armstrong."

    (8-24-05)

    http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/jonathan-prejean-should-have-stayed-in.html

    ReplyDelete
  51. TAO shows the same sort of confusion as to what in fact I have claimed (more proof that you guys are just "winging" this and have little idea what you are talking about, let alone knowledge of dictionary definitions):

    --------------

    You made the decision/vow/whatever to ignore Reformed apologists. That's no one's fault but your own. But I'll tell you what - I'd have a little more respect for your refusal to answer a simple question if you had something you yourself considered a "vow" not to do it. You draw a line between "vows" and something apparently equal so binding that it leaves you in between a rock and a hard place where you are a speudo-vow-breaker or a coward (by your own analysis).

    (7-15-09)

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/07/now-you-see-itnow-you-dont.html?showComment=1247715687753#c8355877465065564162

    Part of your on-going campaign in support of your resolution/promise/vow/whatever to be "ignoring you and other anti-Catholics".

    (7-16-09)

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/07/now-you-see-itnow-you-dont.html?showComment=1247745531910#c7468057099227423517

    ReplyDelete
  52. "I did NOT say that White had a track record "of lying," you put those words in my mouth."

    What you wrote was: "Typical of White, he gave his spin on a philosophical notion of what Caner said, turned it completely around and claimed that, therefore, Caner claimed that if one believes that Christ's death actually saves anyone, that view comes from the devil. What is odd is that White actually posted Caner's words for everyone else to catch White in his lie. Honestly, given White's track record, we have come to expect no better of him."

    ReplyDelete
  53. Since Uncle Dave likes numbers so much...

    Peter's word count (pre-this-comment): 146.

    Steve's word count: 522.

    Dave's word count (pre-the-customary-"This post has been deleted by its author"-rampage): 6,265.

    Seriously, Dave. They make medication for this type of thing.

    Note too that for all his wasted words, Dave actually does get around to admitting everything that Steve and I have said about him, not just in this thread but in many other posts.

    Also, personal note for Dave: does your priest know that you wrote 1/10th of a novel on Triablogue comments during the course of a single day? I just wonder if you might consider telling him, so he can help you with your vow/promise/oath/resolution/suggestion/ideal/hypothesis/perhaps-yes-perhaps-no "I'm never gonna interact with anti-Catholics" pledge/affirmation/creed/hope/statement thing. After all, if you had put that much energy into Hail Mary's and Our Fathers, your Purgatory sentence could have been reduced to only several thousand years. But now you've squandered that time and it's forever irredeemable.

    ReplyDelete
  54. It's remarkable that after all this, the supposed "proof" that I ever made a vow or oath about anti-Catholics and broke it remains nowhere to be seen. There is altogether good reasons for that. It doesn't exist. Not even anti-Catholic myth-making and revisionist history can pretend that it does.

    Instead we have mocking, evasion, and obfuscation.

    One rational, fair-minded (Protestant) soul actually tries to bring objective sanity into the discussion and considers the dictionary definitions of words, and he is ignored.

    We can't have that! We must play games with words and define them our own way, so that the despised Catholic apologist can't possibly ever be right about anything! That goes against the Playbook. It can't be allowed to happen. What would James White say??!!

    Words don't matter; ethics don't matter; NT injunctions of how others should be treated, and how we ought to admit it when we are wrong, go out the window. Anything goes, because of the wicked "evil" Catholic who must never be right on anything whatever.

    Now having inevitably reached the stage of the surreal and absurd, as always in the anti-Catholic fantasy world of nonsense, my powers of rationality have exhausted themselves, and we must descend to humorous satire.

    In honor of the occasion, I present the classic Fiddler on the Roof scene with the engaged couple who "gave each other a pledge."

    Now we can add "pledge" to the roster of oath, vow, resolution, and promise. Enjoy! ROFL

    [see the end of my post for the You Tube video]

    ReplyDelete
  55. Dave's memory:

    (2/16/2010 5:23 PM)"TAO wants to cite an old post of mine?"

    (2/17/2010 10:01 AM)"It's remarkable that after all this, the supposed "proof" that I ever made a vow or oath about anti-Catholics and broke it remains nowhere to be seen. There is altogether good reasons for that. It doesn't exist. Not even anti-Catholic myth-making and revisionist history can pretend that it does."

    ReplyDelete
  56. Notwithstanding our confusion over definitions, it seems clear to me that Steve's argument stands: online blogging resolutions get made and are broken. Whether it is necessary to point out the possible hypocrisy of others to others is a reasonable question for debate, and it depends upon circumstances, contexts and motives. Hypocrisy is something of which the Christian should be ever mindful, but mainly his own rather than others.

    This is what I've learned from this experience in the combox:

    1) "You guys are nasty to me" is not a rational response to the question of whether a resolution has been broken or not. If we fail, we should "man up" to it.

    2) I don't quite understand all the hubbub over whether a vow, oath or resolution was made, since some kind of statement of intent to do so and so can be clearly demonstrated and shown to have been violated, for whatever reason, legitimate or not.

    3) My advice--don't make "statements of intent" of any kind on your blogs. Just pray that the Holy Spirit leads you to do what is pleasing and honouring in His sight, and that He grants you the grace and strength to follow through as consistently as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  57. By the way, I meant to point this out:

    Patrick said, in speaking to Mr.
    Birch...

    If you had wanted to be gracious in keeping with your New Year's resolution, you could have said many things short of calling White a liar and a spin master akin to far left liberals. For example, you could've said White's words were poorly chosen. Or you could've said White made an illogical statement. Or you could've said White made a bad argument. Or you could've said maybe White misunderstood what Caner meant and so he inadvertently glossed Caner's position. Or you could've said maybe White had a slip of the tongue in this particular moment.

    That was excellent. Well said and reflecting my sentiments exactly, though better stated than I would have.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Wait, Dave is seriously suggesting that we need to provide a source for where he said he wouldn't interact with anti-Catholics anymore, after *HE* linked us to his article titled "Clarification of Why I No Longer Attempt Debate With Anti-Catholic Protestants"? And in that clarification, he nowhere says "I don't mean I won't ever do it" but instead repeatedly asserts "this is *WHY* I won't ever do it."

    This is beyond hubris and deep into the realm of insanity.

    I can't wait for DA's dodge that writing 6000+ word responses on a site he says is run by an anti-Catholic doesn't constitute "debate" because it's not conducted by a debate society or whatnot.

    Then again, Dave linked dialgoue and debate several times.

    Exhibit A:
    ---
    But a conversation or even a clarification, as presently, is not the same as a pro-con debate or dialogue on theological subjects, which is what I have said I am through with, out of futility. [bold added]
    ---

    Exhibit B:
    ---
    I didn't know he was referring solely to oral debates at first. I do know that he was dialoguing with me (quite a bit) back in 1996, when we were both members of James White's sola Scriptura Internet discussion list.
    ---

    So it's clear there is no clear-cut line between "debate" and "dialogue" in Dave's mind. I trust readers can see through his veneer and see that this simply means "I don't talk to anti-Catholics who won't let me win."

    I could probably Google more of Dave's stuff, but A) why would I want to do that? and B) this is already sufficient to prove the point.

    Scream away, Dave.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Wait, Dave is seriously suggesting that we need to provide a source for where he said he wouldn't interact with anti-Catholics anymore, . . .

    Nice try, and another excellent example of how what I say is fundamentally distorted by anti-Catholics.

    Of course, what I have been demanding throughout this thread is for my critics to show where I ever made a "vow" or an "oath" to do these things. Eric Svendsen is so cluelsss about definitions, that he can't even distinguish between a "solemn oath" and a "resolution," as I showed. Let him run by his wife, that he made a "resolution" at their wedding rather than a vow, and see how well that goes over. But that is how stupid his reasoning was when it came to me.

    It hasn't been shown that I made and broke a vow because it doesn't exist. That's why all the mocking and idiotic demeanor keeps taking place, precisely because it is indeed known that the proof is not to be had, and an anti-Catholic would rather be impaled than ever admit that a Catholic was right about anything. If it existed, surely it would have been produced by now, rather than every anti-Catholic in this thread making an ass and fool of himself (and John Calvin and Shakespeare both used the word "ass" [donkey] as I just did, so don't even start with that crap).

    I have stated repeatedly that yes, in the past I have made statements that upon reflection were too extreme and impossible to abide by, being an apologist. One of these that has been cited was from 2001. I have no problem admitting that I made a mistake there. I'm not like the anti-Catholics on this thread who seemingly can never admit to being wrong about anything. It was no sin, but it was dumb in its extremity. I've done lots of dumb things in my life, and I suspect I will do many more before I leave this earth. I'm not perfect like anti-Catholics are. But it's one thing to do something dumb; quite another to be an alleged vow-breaker and oath-breaker, which I have never done.

    But it was no vow or oath, which is the main point, and the point under consideration. Thus, it is not a violation of a "solemn oath" (Svendsen) or breaking of a vow, to change one's mind on such a thing.

    It is exactly because of my high view of vows and oaths (following the biblical view) that I was very careful not to use those words, because that was not how I perceived what I did at all.

    In that very statement, I specifically used the word "resolve". It's simply not a vow or an oath. My critics have been lying about that for now ten years and running. That is a serious sin. They continue to lie, even though I have repeatedly demonstrated that there is nothing to it, and that there is considerable hypocrisy and inconsistency among my critics on the same score.

    Now the game is to be legalistic and ridiculous about what I have chosen to do and not do with regard to anti-Catholics, as if that is not my prerogative to decide in the first place.

    If I say I am not debating out of a principle (explained till I am blue in the face), I get the accusation that I am really doing it (wink, wink) because I am a coward. Or it is stated that I have run from anti-Catholics all along (a one-minute perusal of my Anti-Catholic, James White, and Contra-Catholic web pages puts the lie to that immediately).

    If I decide to make an exception (for excellent reasons) to my usual policy to debate Jason Engwer, I am mocked for supposedly being untrue to my word, as if no exceptions whatever are ever justifiable. Then when I cease doing that and go back to my regular work (just as I said I would) I am mocked as a coward, as if no one is aware of my own resolution, that they mocked when I entered the debate. Absolutely nothing I do makes any difference. This is how bigots and those who despise other human beings act.

    ReplyDelete
  60. But pilgrimsarbour raises a good point:

    "My advice--don't make "statements of intent" of any kind on your blogs. Just pray that the Holy Spirit leads you to do what is pleasing and honouring in His sight, and that He grants you the grace and strength to follow through as consistently as possible."

    I think this is good advice, generally speaking. But it occurred to me that one of the reasons folks like myself have been led to make such statements (and I was goaded into my 2001 statement by Ronnie and it was partially in reaction to the similar resolution that James White had already made regarding myself, that I have cited above) is precisely because if we choose not to interact with anti-Catholics, because it is always a futile effort and nothing is ever accomplished, and it usually descends into pure insults on their side (just as we see in this thread), we are accused of being cowards.

    That's not at all the case with me, since I have a proven track record of debating virtually all the leading online Catholics. James White has ignored (or, "run from," from one perspective) far more of my critiques than I have ever avoided of his.

    So we feel led to make statements of this nature in large part to make it clear that it is a principled decision to avoid certain folks with whom we believe no constructive dialogue is possible. But if I say that I am called a liar; misrepresenting my true motives.

    Fine; say what you will. I am still responsible under God to make responsible use of my time and efforts, as a matter of stewardship.

    I happen to think it is pointless to engage at any length folks who say you are "evil" or "beyond hubris and deep into the realm of insanity," as Peter Pike just delightfully observed.

    One thing that is obvious is that no one likes to be considered so unserious and lacking in intellectual acumen that others will decide they are not worth spending the time debating. That's a blow to human pride. I believe this is what is really at the bottom of the extreme disdain and insults thrown my way, because I have often (not always) abided by this policy in my 14 years online.

    No one wants to think that their position is the mental, emotional equivalent of a flat earth or geocentrism, or Holocaust denial. But my view of the fringe movement of anti-Catholic Protestantism is scarcely any higher than my view of those things. I've always thought it was a viciously self-defeating system. I have dealt with it only because it was part of my job as an apologist, to oppose error.

    Beyond that basic view of the position, there is the further fact of how anti-Catholics I have attempted to debate, when I had no resolution otherwise, have conducted themselves. And that is, of course, uniformly disgraceful behavior, that is an insult to the very notion of dialogue.

    After years of trying off and on to try to have a rational discussion, I gave up. When I made an exception for Jason Engwer recently, he was a gentleman, as he usually is, but he systematically ignored much of my argumentation (as I demonstrated, to the tune of ignoring 87 and 88% of my words, when he cited them back to reply to). So that was no debate. He didn't offer insults outwardly, but in his utter disdain for his opponent's arguments, he showed quite a bit of disdain.

    So which is better: pretending to debate without really seriously trying to do so, as he did, or stating upfront that you don't consider a certain strain of thought of sufficient seriousness to spend time debating and interacting with (which is my position)?

    I spent yesterday and a small portion of today exposing the nefarious tactics used by anti-Catholics, the lack of ethics, and pitiful "logic."

    That's enough. Now I need to get back to serious work.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "One thing that is obvious is that no one likes to be considered so unserious and lacking in intellectual acumen that others will decide they are not worth spending the time debating."

    Cf. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/10/chat-room-debate-challenge-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dave,

    I for one, without the playbook mind you, don't buy any of what you just wrote.

    Here is what I buy with regards to you.

    Let these men judge it and offer a correction, instruction, reproof or even a rebuke!

    Here is what I am guided by, the Scriptures:::>

    Rom 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.
    Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
    Rom 16:18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

    and, as I indicated in an earlier post, if any one of the many USA Cardinals were fully informed about you, they might actually do what the Spirit of Grace gave the Apostle Paul insight and wisdom to instruct Titus to do after two admonitions with regard to your rants and continual insinuations in here about the members of Triablogue and other Christian interlocutors participating in the here:::>

    Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
    Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
    Tit 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
    Tit 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
    Tit 3:8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.
    Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
    Tit 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,
    Tit 3:11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.


    When you are asked to "consider" substance over self, I will bet my wooden indian nickel that the "substance" Steve is thinking about is that there in Titus 3:4-8 all the while wondering, like I am right now, if you might be like those kinds of souls being described at 3:9-11?

    ReplyDelete
  63. "One thing that is obvious is that no one likes to be considered so unserious and lacking in intellectual acumen that others will decide they are not worth spending the time debating."

    Cf. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/10/chat-room-debate-challenge-to.html

    Exactly, TAO! Thanks for proving my point. The challenge was precisely to demonstrate that anti-Catholics are so unserious that they will refuse to defend their views, even in its most basic aspects. And so seven of y'all did just that. You wanted no part of a double cross-examination format.

    I knew it was 99.99% certain when I made the challenge that no one would be willing to take me up on it (because n one had in the previous 11 years online), and sure enough, that is what happened. So, far from proving anti-Catholics are worth any time debating, it demonstrated the opposite. No one should take them seriously because they won't defend their fundamental premises, like any self-respecting intellectual does.

    Just like this thread: even the most elementary requirements are scorned and mocked. No one care about the definitions of the words in dispute, which is always fundamental to any serious discussion. The only one who did was Pilgrimsarbour, and he's not anti-Catholic. Because he isn't, and is a serious thinker, I can easily have good discussions with him (and have had several). Theologically, he is a Calvinist. He agrees with you guys. But he also cares about ethics and talking about basic premises in a way that no one else in this thread has.

    The other basic thing lacking is the notion of "innocent until proven guilty." The anti-Catholic principle for a Catholic is "guilty until not proven guilty."

    So I supposedly am a vow-breaker and liar. When challenged to prove why this allegedly is the case, you clowns come up with absolutely nothing; zero, zilch, zip, nada.

    Therefore, you thumb your nose at the basic requirements of what you need to do to prove your case: 1) define terms properly, and 2) produce solid evidence that the accused person did what was charged.

    This is only one of 10,000 reasons that I don't take anti-Catholicism seriously. I never did. The only reason I have dealt with it at all is to show that it is gravely mistaken in many areas.

    I can still approach the anti-Catholic in the sense that he is a brother in Christ, which is huge common ground, but because I am not considered that, it never works. It's doomed from the outset.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dave's mouth side 1:

    “but could never manage to do so with anti-Catholics, because of the combination of ignorance, stubbornness, and hostility.”

    “It's the classic Big Lie: you simply repeat it enough times like a mantra and ignorant followers who trust your judgment will believe it.”

    “you clowns”

    Dave's mouth side 2:

    “I can still approach the anti-Catholic in the sense that he is a brother in Christ”

    ReplyDelete
  65. The Apostle Paul's inspired mouth, side 1:

    Galatians 1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel"

    Galatians 3:1-3 "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
    [2] Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
    [3] Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?"

    Galatians 4:9b ". . . how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?"

    Galatians 5:4 "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

    Galatians 5:7 "You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?"

    The Apostle Paul's inspired mouth, side 2:

    Galatians 1:2 "To the churches of Galatia"

    Galatians 1:11 "For I would have you know, brethren, . . ."

    Galatians 3:25-27 "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; [26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

    Galatians 4:4-7 "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, [5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. [6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" [7] So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir."

    Galatians 4:9a "but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, . . ."

    Galatians 4:12 "Brethren, I beseech you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong"

    Galatians 4:19 "My little children, . . ."

    Galatians 4:28 "Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise."

    Galatians 4:31 "So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman."

    Galatians 5:1 "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

    Galatians 6:1 "Brethren, . . ."

    Galatians 6:18 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen."

    There are similar dynamics with the Corinthian church as well.

    See also our Lord Jesus talking out of both sides of His divine mouth, in calling all seven churches or Revelation "churches" (2:1; 2:8; 2:12; 2:18; 3:1; 3:7; 3:14; along with the repetition of "what the Spirit says to the churches" in 2:7 and similar passages) yet excoriating several of them (2:4-5; 2:14-16; 2:20-22; 3:1-3; 3:15-18).

    ReplyDelete
  66. Dave,

    Jesus had a different view of what constitutes an oath than you do. Steve's already quoted the relevant Scripture for you. Furthermore, you continue to ignore the fact that one not need to violate an "official" oath to be a liar; which is why you want to focus on the "I'm not an oath-breaker" aspect. You are in essence saying, "Yeah, I lied about not interacting with anti-Catholics, but it's okay because I never made a vow. I just said I would do so; and so a little [James] white lie here and there is no biggie." In fact, you've set it up right now so that the only person you would feel bad about lying to is your wife, because she's the only one you made a vow to.

    That's pretty pathetic, no matter how you cut it.

    Let's look at this for a moment:

    1: When you say X and then do non-X, that is a lie.

    2: Dave said he is "through with" both "a pro-con debate or dialogue on theological subjects" with anti-Catholics.

    3: Using Scripture to back your argument would most certainly be a "dialogue on theological subjects" given Scripture *just is* a theological subject!

    4: Dave considers TF to be an anti-Catholic.

    5: Dave just quoted 17 passages of Scripture in an attempt to defend himself to TF.

    6: Dave said X but did non-X.

    7: Therefore, Dave is a liar.

    I would now further add the following:

    8: Any mature, Godly person ought to recognize his own lies and apologize for them.

    9: Dave doesn't recognize his own lies, nor does he apologize for them (he instead rationalizes them).

    I'll let you fill in the conclusion.

    ReplyDelete