Ah yes, and when Armstrong breaks his near-promise before the end of '08, let's have it set down what he promised:
"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.
Oh, by the way, this 1500+ word post (700+ if you exclude the massive block quotation) would seem to be the enormous response to Dr. White's post addressing Armstrong's radio comments, to which Armstrong replied (in his first response):
"[quoting Dr. White] 'I'm certain that I will see, within the next two days, a long blog article about how terrible and horrible and everything else that I am . . .' [Armstrong responds:] Sorry to disappoint you, Your Eminence, and to wreck your prophetic prowess, but I just ain't interested anymore in dealing with fools and intellectual cowards who consistently refuse to defend their positions when challenged in writing again and again. "
This blog will continue, nevertheless, to carry rebuttals of Armstrong's positions as time and space permit. I think I still have two responses in draft form. Ah well. C'est la vie.
May God open the eyes of the blind,
(1) UPDATE: March 2, 2008, brings Dave's first interaction with the present author's works, via a one-line post with a link to RdP's post, which can be found here (link) unless Dave moves or removes it.
(2) UPDATE to the update (March 27, 2008): Dave provides a link intensive assertive post in which he makes such rookie mistakes as his erroneous claim "St. Augustine did not reject human free will, as the Calvinists do." Dave's demonstration of his ignorance of Reformed theology or the valid objections to Romanist soteriology (or the absurdity of Catholicisms inability to answer the centuries-old question of whether Molinism or Thomism is correct), however, does not deserve further rebuttal at this time. (link)
(3) UPDATE: March 12, 2008, brings Dave's first interaction with Dr. White's works, via this brief (by Armstrong's standard) post sarcastically mocking Doc for interacting with news reports that have subsequently been disavowed by Vatican officials - which can be found here (link) unless Dave moves or removes it.
(4) UPDATE: March 25, 2008, Dave's inability to move away from Dr. White crops again, this time with a repost of a comedy piece targeting Dr. White originally posted by the American Papist, which can be found at Dave's site here (link) unless Dave moves or removes it.
(5) UPDATE: March 27, 2008, Dave posts a short mocking piece against one of his favorite nemeses, David King (link).
(6) UPDATE: March 29, 2008, Dave returns to another of his favorite non-Catholic opponents, James Swan. Dave's comments lack any substance - but just seem to be an excuse for mentioning Mr. Swan in some negative way (link).
(7) Update to the Update: March 31, 2008, Dave proposes some sort of mutual disarmament pact with James Swan in which each would remove the negative comments about the other that had been posted to each other's blogs. It seems odd to me - if Dave thinks that the negative comments he made about Swan are bad, why not unilaterally remove them? But Dave concludes, "made the offer in good faith, and it is now part of the record too. God knows my motivation and my heart in all this. That's enough for me. You see Swan's record of unethical behavior above, and who he keeps close company with, and how he conducts himself." I think that says all that needs to be said about that. (link)
(8) UPDATE the Third: April 1, 2008, Dave finds fresh reason to discuss James Swan and to misuse his favorite word, "anti-Catholic" (link).
(9) UPDATE: April 2, 2008, Dave modifies a previous post on Swan to replace John Q. Doe for Swan's real name, throughout (link).
(10) UPDATE: April 8, 2008, Dave returns to Dr. White by posting a revision of fictional interview of Dr. James White by Luther. (link)
(11) UPDATE: April 8, 2008, Dave returns AGAIN to Dr. White by posting a sarcastic ad hominem piece siding with Dr. White's debate opponent. (link)
(12) UPDATE: April 10, 2008, Dave still cannot keep away from Dr. White - this time attempting to respond to Dr. White's discussion of Romans 1 in his recent debate with Steve Gregg (link). Dave's arguments - if correct - would actually prove the Pelagian case, not the Roman Catholic case. Of course, they're not correct, but I have better things to respond to at the moment.
(13) UPDATE: April 17, 2008, More ignorance, mud, and insults from Dave against the present author in his latest post (link). Nothing of substance is in Dave's post, so this entry in the chronicles of Dave's fulfilment of his near promise to Dr. White, "I'll be ignoring you and other anti-Catholics (barring exceptional circumstances; particularly if it involves defending someone else from anti-Catholic smear campaigns)," should suffice as my response.
(14) UPDATE: May 7, 2008, Dave continues to mislabel his theological opponents, with such ultra-charitable descriptions as: "rabid anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists like Steve Hays and David T. King and Kevin Johnson and TAO [yours truly, apparently Dave does not like to call me by my screenname], and now in this Lutheran quasi-anti-Catholic."
Interestingly, one may recall Dave's earlier claim: "So if we look at some of my non-anti-Catholic Protestant dialogue partners, we find, for example: ... Kevin Johnson (now a pastor): eight [dialogues] .... That's already 69 separate dialogues with eight Protestants: none of whom I would remotely consider ever calling an anti-Catholic ...." (emphasis in original) (link) I guess Dave is down to 7 Protestants and 61 separate dialogues. Who knows how much further the list will shrink!
(15) UPDATE: May 7, 2008, Dave continues to claim that folks have "persistently refused" to debate him in a post on mixed Catholic/non-Catholic marriages: "This is why I have challenged, time and again, the more vocal Internet debaters for the anti-Catholic position, to engage the topic of the definition of Christianity in a live chat room setting. But they persistently refuse. There could be so much less conflict and pain if both sides would just talk intelligently about such fundamental issues." (link)
Dave (in the same post) makes the bizarre claim: "And Protestants continue to argue that folks can disagree on the “secondary” issues and still have unity. Nuh-uh. That ain’t a biblical view. The original Protestants didn’t argue this way at all. They felt that they had spiritual and theological truth and fought for it. It’s only when liberalism came in and continuing Protestant sectarianism, that this other worldview of acceptance of the necessary presence of contradiction and error somewhere, started being accepted." (But compare this earlier post by yours truly) (and this new post responsive to Armstrong's charge)
(16) UPDATE: May 13, 2008 - Dave directs his charity to Carrie, insisting (irrationally) that she is unaware of his sophistical distinction between Protestants in general and "Anti-Catholics" (which, as we have explored, is about as silly as suggesting that the pope is "Anti-Semitic" because he prays for the conversion of the Jews in his "Good Friday" prayer) (link to post). Dave continues his display of charity with the following comment in the post's combox: "This sort of asinine nonsense, seen in Carrie's empty-headed "analysis" is just one in a million examples, and why I have no time for these people anymore." (link to combox) Dave continues by immediately retracting his extreme language by the extremely tender-hearted remark: "I only have time to pointedly expose their antics once in a while, as presently."
(17) UPDATE: May 19, 2008 - Dave turns to one of his perennial favorites, Steve Hays, falsely accusing Hays of hypocrisy over Hays' appropriate use of the classification "anti-Calvinist." (link)
(18) UPDATE: May 19, 2008 - Dave AGAIN turns to the cross-hairs of his charity on Stave Hays, this time criticizing Steve Hays for Hays' defense of God's providential provision of a plethora of denominations, against Armstrong's vapid criticism of it (link).
(19) UPDATE: May 21, 2008 - Dave falsely accuses James Swan of "Lies" about Dave's recent book on Luther (link). The irony: Dave ends up having to admit that James Swan actually never mentions him or his book. One's reminded of a certain song by Carly Simon (no, not "Boys in the Trees" 1978). He claims that the article misrepresents his book, but he even has to admit that the alleged misrepresentations may not be deliberate! (So much for "Lies") To top it off, he "return[s] the favor by not naming him or linking to his critiques." Instead, Dave quotes without attribution (a no-no in the academic world). If anyone is looking for James Swan's article here it is (link).
(20) UPDATE: May 30, 2008 - Dave complains about Steve Hays and Gene Bridges noting the general lack of imprimatur for Dave's works. Evidently over the years two books that Dave has worked on have received imprimatur/nihil obstat. Dave then goes on to compare himself to G. K. Chesterton (link).
(21) UPDATE: June 18, 2008 - Dave claims a string of 35 victories (stretching from November 2002 to June 2008) over James Swan (while employing a mocking pseudonym for Mr. Swan) (link). In the process, Dave points out other activities that he has been engaging in responsive to Mr. Swan (example).
(22) UPDATE: June 24, 2008 - Dave promotes Mark Shea's mockery of Dr. White (link).
(EXTRA) June 25, 2008 - Dave interestingly promotes the sale of Frank Turk's "Free Dave Armstrong" t-shirt (link).
(23) UPDATE: June 30, 2008 - Dave continues to tangle with James Swan - this time on the issue of whether "Any Early Protestant Reformers Adhere[d] to the Assumption of Mary" (link) Piling on the antipathy, Armstrong refers to Mr. Swan as "Anti-Catholic pseudo-scholar John Q. "Deadhead" Doe."
(24) UPDATE: July 2, 2008 - Dave continues to write about James Swan - this time defending his hypocritical decision to ban James Swan from a Catholic chat room after griping about being banned from Dr. White's chat channel (link).
(25) UPDATE: July 2, 2008 - Dave publishes a list of recommended books, but cannot pass up the opportunity to bash "anti-Catholic" books (link). Naturally, Drs. White and Svendsen are the top two authors whose writings Dave is afraid Roman Catholics will read, and William Webster and David T. King also make Dave's top five, followed by Lorraine Boettner.
(26) UPDATE: July 8, 2008 - Dave goes after yours truly claiming "hypocrisy" and so forth (link).
(27) UPDATE: July 8, 2008 - Dave provides yet a second attack piece ... this time criticizing the present author for noting that a papist took the "Christian" side of a debate (link). Apparently, Dave thinks that since he's labeled me an "anti-Catholic" I must express hostility towards any papist no matter whether they advocate truth or error.
(28) UPDATE: July 9, 2008 - Dave provides an apologetic for his use of the distracting term "anti-Catholic" to describe his more outspoken critics (link). I assume this is either a rehash or a date bump of an earlier post Dave had on the subject. Dave's apparent argument is that if "scholarly" sources use it, his use of it is also acceptable. Ironically, Dave would seemingly not find the similar use of "papist" in scholarly sources (examples) justification for use of that term (see item 26 above - that link (link) being repeated here)
(29) UPDATE: July 11, 2008 - More claims of "double standards" from Dave, this time directed primarily at Dr. James White (complete with Dave's usual unscholarly mocking) (link).
(30) UPDATE: July 27, 2008 - Dave reports that he has finally this year been paid to go to an apologetics conference and has been asked to speak next year. (link) This post was presented as responsive to James Swan's comments last year on the fact that at that time Dave wasn't well respected in the "Catholic" apologetics community. In keeping with the general tone of his dealings with those Dave doesn't like, Dave depicts James Swan as "Jabba the Hut" (link) and uses the mocking pseudonym "John Q. "Deadhead" Doe" to identify him.
(31) UPDATE: July 28, 2008 - Dave strikes another low blow for Rome. The way in which he does so, the reader will simply have to trust me based on the documentation above, as I am not going to link to or discuss the post itself (suffice that even Dave himself is refusing to permit comments on the post via his usual comment box).
(32) UPDATE: July 31, 2008 - Dave embeds a video clip involving manipulated audio taken from a variety of sources including a live debate of Dr. White's. (link) Additionally, Dave throws together a collection of links of places where he feels he has attempted to respond to Dr. White. Of course, even the sub-title of the post is mocking, "How Far the Mighty Bishop White Has Fallen . . ." (beneath a picture of a fallen white chess bishop).
(33) UPDATE: August 1, 2008 - Dave responds to Dr. White's criticism of item (32) above. (link) Dave complains at length without actually addressing anything of substance.
(34) UPDATE: August 2, 2008 - Dave responds to Cory Tucholski's passing comment about Dave Armstrong reading his blog. (link) Most of the post is an attempt to justify his (Dave's) mocking posts.
(35) UPDATE: August 5, 2008 - Dave again responds to this post, and continues to mock and throw insults (link). Dave employs one of his favorite weapons: accusing his opponents of acting like him (i.e. especially of having double standards).
(36) UPDATE: October 2, 2008 - After a lengthy hiatus, Dave has now added a new opponent to the list of folks he dismissively lists as "anti-Catholic" (link).
(37) UPDATE: September 30, 2008 - Perhaps note (36) is inaccurate. Upon further investigation, it seems Dave has now started labeling his fellow papists who reject Vatican 2 "anti-Catholic" as well (link). His promise to ignore didn't specify whether the person he is ignoring accepts Old Catholicism or rejects it as heretical, so we'll simply have to wait and see whether Dave issues any revised promise.
(38) UPDATE: October 7, 2008 - Dave criticizes (in part) and praises (in part) John MacArthur whom Dave labels as an "anti-Catholic." (link)
(39) UPDATE: January 29, 2009 - Dave interacts with Tim Enloe and other folks that Dave characterizes as his "anti-Catholic cronies." (link)
(40) UPDATE: February 13, 2009 - Dave provides a "top ten list" of what he perceives to be insults (read "criticisms" for "insults" and you'll get the idea) he has received over the years (link). Yours truly did not make the list, but Frank Turk (#9), Eric Svendsen (#7), Gene Bridges (#5), and James White (#4) all made an appearance. Most of the supposed "insults" were actually criticisms of Dave's penchant for dishonesty and his lack of scholarly methodology.
(41) UPDATE: April 2, 2009 - Dave responds to arguments from James Swan on the issue of Mary and the Woman of Revelation 12 in the diversity of views held among those within Catholicism (link).
(42) UPDATE: April 3, 2009 - Dave responds to arguments that from James Swan citing to Raymond Brown (link).
(43) UPDATE: April 4, 2009 - Dave complains about Ken Temple and James Swan in his comment box (link).
(44) UPDATE: April 5, 2009 - Dave responds to "clueless" (his word) "attacks" (also his word) from "half-witted fools" (also his ultra-charitable words) on the New Catholic Answer Bible (link).
(45) UPDATE: April 7, 2009 - Dave attempts to suggest that idolatry was a part of both Old and New Testament worship practice through quotation of verses and recasting the question in terms of "physical objects as aids in worship." (link)
(46) UPDATE: April 11, 2009 - Dave jumps on the Patty Bonds smear campaign bandwagon (link).
(47) UPDATE: April 13, 2009 - Dave attacks James White for allegedly insulting and smearing Steve Ray (link).
(48) UPDATE: April 13, 2009 - Dave continues the Patty Bonds accusation joyride (link).
(49) UPDATE: April 13, 2009 - Dave points out that he has had books accepted by "Major Catholic Publishers" despite what he imagines to be James Swan's statements to the contrary (link).
(50) UPDATE: April 13, 2009 - Dave notes "Anti-Catholic" authors that have been self-published in an apparent effort to make himself look comparable to them (link).
(51) UPDATE: April 16, 2009 - Dave responds to James Swan's article and attempts to downplay the fact that (depending on the question asked) up to 70% of Roman Catholics do not understand the doctrines of Catholicism related to the Eucharist (link).
There were a great deal more of the same that I lacked time or interest in even briefly documenting. Nevertheless, I found it interesting to see Dave explain the situation in December 2012:
I'm becoming increasingly disgusted with anti-Catholic antics, and probably will now choose to ignore it for the most part, or perhaps even totally. I have been merely documenting anti-Catholic foolishness since 2007, when I stopped debating them, for the sheer futility of it. It may now be time to even stop that.Notice the similarity:
What I have already documented, and (from 1996 to 2007) debated with them is more than sufficient for me to feel that I have done my "apologetic duty" of protecting the flock from this garbage.
"I'll be ignoring you and other anti-Catholics (barring exceptional circumstances; particularly if it involves defending someone else from anti-Catholic smear campaigns)."
"I'm becoming increasingly disgusted with anti-Catholic antics, and probably will now choose to ignore it for the most part, or perhaps even totally."