“The One-Minute Apologist”: Quotation Sources & Additional Contexts

“The One-Minute Apologist”: Quotation Sources & Additional Contexts May 20, 2007
One-MinuteApologist (396x613)
(5-20-07; updated on 19 February 2012)


My publisher chose to not include the documentation for all the quotations I was asked to provide for each two-page section of my just-released book (see its book page and purchase information). This information was included in my manuscript, and so I shall provide that information here. Blue sections are continuations of quotations that were edited out of the published version, and green sections preceded existing book citations in my original manuscript:
* * * * * 
Martin Luther [p. 5]

(in the year 1532; from Protestant Luther biographer Roland H. Bainton, Studies on the Reformation [Boston: Beacon Press, 1963], p. 26; primary source: WA [Werke, Weimar edition in German], XXX, 552; bracketed comment is Bainton’s own)

Robert McAfee Brown (Protestant scholar) [p. 7]

“Much of this may be due to faulty reading and faulty listening. But it cannot all be explained so simply. It can be explained only by recognizing honestly that Protestants do not rely on sola Scriptura in quite the pure way that Reformation Sunday sermons would suggest.”(

The Spirit of Protestantism, London: Oxford University Press, 1961, 215-216)

F.F. Bruce (Protestant Bible scholar) [pp. 9, 11]
(The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 79-80; discussing St. Athanasius’ Festal Letter [No. 39], written in 367)
(The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 41, 50, 280-282)

James Gairdner (Protestant Church historian) [p. 13]

(Lollardy and the Reformation in England, Vol. 1 of 4, 1908, 105, 117)

Philip Schaff (Protestant Church historian) [p. 17]

“. . . and the accounts of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome, that the same apostle nominated and ordained Polycarp (with whom Irenaeus was personally acquainted) bishop of Smyrna.”

(History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970; from the 5th revised edition of 1910, 135-136)

John Calvin [p. 19]

” . . . [Matt. 22:30]. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isa. 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify . . .”

(Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill; translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, IV, 1, 4; Vol. 2, p. 1016)

Philip Schaff (Protestant Church historian) [p. 21]

(History of the Christian Church, vol. 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974; from the revised 5th edition of 1910, 396-397)

James D.G. Dunn (Protestant New Testament Scholar) [p. 23]

(Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, second edition, 1990, 192-193; glossalalia is the Greek word for tongues)

Bertrand Conway [p. 25]

“Neither excommunication nor anathemas imply the Church’s condemning anyone to hell. That is the prerogative of God alone. Excommunication is a Church law, excluding a notorious sinner from the communion of the faithful (Canons 2257-2267). Its purpose is to warn the sinner of the danger he runs of incurring eternal ruin, unless he repent of his sin. The “delivering of the sinner to Satan,” which we find in the Roman Pontifical, is based on the words of St. Paul, who delivered the incestuous sinner to Satan, “that his spirit might be saved in the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 5:5; cf. 1 Tim. 1:20).”

(The Question Box, New York: The Paulist Press, 205)

Ronald Knox [p. 27]

(University and Anglican Sermons, London: Burns and Oates, 1963, 63)

H. Richard Niebuhr (Protestant Theologian) [p. 29]

(The Social Sources of Denominationalism, New York: The World Publishing Co. / Meridian Books, 1957; originally 1929, 25)

The Catholic Encyclopedia [p. 31]

(Vol. VI, 1909, “Galileo Galilei,” John Gerard)

James D.G. Dunn (Protestant Bible scholar) [p. 35]

(Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 2nd edition, 1990, 385; cited in agreement by Bruce in the work above, pp. 42-43)

The New Bible Dictionary (Protestant reference work) [p. 37]

(general editor: J.D. Douglas; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, “Power,” section III: “The Power of the Keys,” by R.N. Caswell, pp. 1017-1018)

R.T. France (Anglican Bible commentator) [p. 39]

“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . .”

(in Leon Morris, general editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

The New Bible Dictionary (Protestant reference work) [p. 41]

(Organizing editor: J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962; article “Peter,” written by A.F. Walls, 973)

John Henry Newman [p. 43]

(An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1845, Part I, Ch. 2, Sec. 3)

Patrick Madrid (Catholic Apologist) [p. 45]

(Pope Fiction, San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999, 161-162)

St. Augustine [p. 49]

(The City of God, translated by Henry Bettenson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972, XX, 10; p. 919)

Pope Pius XII (r. 1939-1958) [p. 51]

(Menti Nostrae, 23 September 1950)

C.S. Lewis [p. 53]

(“Priestesses in the Church?” From: God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, edited by Walter Hooper, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970, 235-236; originally published as “Notes on the Way,” in Time and Tide, vol. XXIX: 14 August 1948, pp. 830-831)

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) [p. 57]

(Summa Theologica, III, Q. 66, Art. 11)

Blaise Pascal [p. 59]

Pensees (no further documentation given)

St. Augustine [p. 61]

(The City of God, translated by Henry Bettenson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972, XXII, 10; pp. 1048-1049)

F.F. Bruce (Protestant Bible Scholar) [p. 63]

(Israel and the Nations, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963; reprinted 1981, 41)

St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) [p. 65]

This one is a blatant typo in the book. My concluding words were mistakenly listed as a citation from St. Ignatius (!!!). I’m honored and humbled by the “compliment”, but here is my intended citation:

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, Who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man and Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live for ever in Jesus Christ.”

(Letter to the Ephesians, 20)

Martin Luther [pp. 67, 69]

(Large Catechism, 1529; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1935; section 230, p. 165)

(Large Catechism, 1529; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1935; section 234, p. 167)

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. [p. 71]

(Modern Catholic Dictionary, Garden City, New York, Doubleday & Company, 1980, “Limbo,” p. 320)

Blaise Pascal [p. 73]

Pensees (no further documentation given)

C.S. Lewis [p. 77]

(Mere Christianity, New York: Macmillan, 1952, 129-130)

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism) [p. 79]

(A Farther Appeal, 1745, Works, London: 1831, VIII, 68 ff. / Working Out Our Own Salvation, 1788, Works, VI, 511 ff.)

John Calvin [p. 81]

(Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill; translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, IV, 1, 3; Vol. 2, p. 1015; cf. IV, 1, 8; IV, 12, 9)

. . . [II Tim. 2:19]

(Ibid., IV, 1, 2; Vol. 2, p. 1013)

John Henry Newman [pp. 83, 85]

(Lectures on Justification; no further documentation)

(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. 5, Sermon 14: “Transgressions and Infirmities” – from Newman’s Anglican period: 1840)

G.K. Chesterton [p. 87]

(All Things Considered, 1908; New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956, 140-141)

C.S. Lewis [p. 89]

“Though Our Lord often speaks of Hell as a sentence inflicted by a tribunal, He also says elsewhere that the judgement consists in the very fact that men prefer darkness to light, and that not He, but His ‘word,’ judges men. We are therefore at liberty – since the two conceptions, in the long run, mean the same thing – to think of this bad man’s perdition not as a sentence imposed on him but as the mere fact of being what he is. The characteristic of lost souls is ‘their rejection of everything that is not simply themselves.’”

(The Problem of Pain, New York: Macmillan, 1962, ch. 8, 122-123)

Fr. Ray Ryland [p. 91]

The Church speaks of “implicit desire” or “longing” that can exist in the hearts of those who seek God but are ignorant of the means of his grace. If a person longs for salvation but does not know the divinely established means of salvation, he is said to have an implicit desire for membership in the Church. Non-Catholic Christians know Christ, but they do not know his Church. In their desire to serve him, they implicitly desire to be members of his Church. Non-Christians can be saved, said John Paul, if they seek God with “a sincere heart.” In that seeking they are “related” to Christ and to his body the Church . . .

(“No Salvation Outside the Church,” This Rock, Vol. 16, No. 10, December 2005)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [p. 93]
(De Civ. Dei [City of God], xxi. 13, and xxi. 24)
(F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 1144-1145)
John Henry Newman [p. 95]
(An Essay on the Grammar of Assent, 1870, 10)
C.S. Lewis [p. 99]
(“The Poison of Subjectivism,” 1943; later included in Christian Reflections: New York: Macmillan: 1967)
Romano Guardini (Catholic Theologian) [p. 101]
It is in him, the Third Person of the Trinity, that Father and Son are powerfully individual, yet one.
(The Lord, translated by Elinor Castendyk Briefs, Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1954, 433)

Sir Arnold Lunn (English Writer) [p. 103]

(Now I See, 1933)

Matthias Premm (Catholic Theologian) [p. 105]

The teaching of the Catholic Church is this: the unity in Christ did not result from the uniting of his two natures with each other, but in the union of each of them in the Person of the Son of God. The union is thus achieved in the Person (in theological terms this is called the hypostatic union), and not in the natures . . . both divine and human attributes can be predicated of him, although the two natures are separated by an infinite abyss. For example, I can say that Christ is omniscient (as God), but also that he does not know everything (as man); God is lying in the crib (that is, as a man); God is dying on the cross, etc.

(Dogmatic Theology for the Laity, Rockford, IL: TAN, 1967, 151-152)

St. Augustine [p. 109]

(On Nature and Grace [415], XXXVI, 42)

Martin Luther [pp. 111, 113]

(That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, 1523; LW: Vol. 45, 199, 206)

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, volume 21, 326)

Heinrich Bullinger (Prominent Early Protestant Leader) [p. 115]

(in Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of all Christians, translated by Neville B. Cryer, New York: Herder & Herder, 1963, 197-198; from De origine erroris, 16, written in 1568)

John Henry Newman [p. 117]

The last clause in the published version was cut off, and a period put after “power,” leaving an incomplete sentence at the end. The “Though then” at the beginning, shows that the grammar necessitates an additional clause, because it is a compare-and-contrast sentence. Obviously, inadvertent human error on my (all in all, excellent) editor’s part . . .

Our Lord died for those heathens who did not know Him; and His Mother intercedes for those Christians who do not know her; and she intercedes according to His will, and, when He wills to save a particular soul, she at once prays for it. I say, He wills indeed according to her prayer, but then she prays according to His will. Though then it is natural and prudent for those to have recourse to her, who from the Church’s teaching know her power, yet it cannot be said that devotion to her is a sine-qua-non of salvation.

(Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching, Vol. 2, § 5)

Martin Luther / Philip Schaff (Protestant Church Historian) [p. 119]

(Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, 1528, in Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, vol. 37, 369)

(History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970; 5th revised edition of 1910, 603-604)

C.S. Lewis [p. 121]

[D]evotions to saints . . . There is clearly a theological defence for it; if you can ask for the prayers of the living, why should you not ask for the prayers of the dead? . . . I am not thinking of adopting the practice myself; and who am I to judge the practices of others? . . . The consoling thing is that while Christendom is divided about the rationality and even the lawfulness, of praying to the saints, we are all agreed about praying with them. ‘With angels and archangels and all the company of heaven’ . . . You may say that the distinction between the communion of the saints as I find it in that act and full-fledged prayer to saints is not, after all, very great. All the better if so. I sometimes have a bright dream of reunion engulfing us unawares, like a great wave from behind our backs . . . Discussions usually separate us; actions sometimes unite us.

(Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly On Prayer, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 15-16)

Ronald Knox [p. 123]

The book edit fails to include ellipses [ . . . ] between “the faith” and “Yes, this man . . .”, thus leaving the impression that Knox’s original statement didn’t include all the words in between them.

The attitude of our non-Catholic friends towards the Catholic saints; they always contrive to discredit, in one of two ways, their witness to the faith. Either they will say: “This was a very unpleasant, narrow-minded man, of ridiculous personal habits; and if that is what saints are like we would sooner hear no more of them”, or they will say: “Yes, this man was indeed a saint; but then he was not really a Roman Catholic. He was just a good Christian, as I and my wife are; he only happened to be in communion with the Pope because everybody was in those days.”

(Occasional Sermons, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1960, 115-116)

James Cardinal Gibbons [p. 127]

(The Faith of Our Fathers, New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, revised edition, 1917, 311)

Carryl Houselander (American Writer) [p. 129]

(Guilt, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951)

Bertrand L. Conway [p. 131]

(The Question Box, New York: The Paulist Press, revised edition, 1929, 368)

Martin Luther [p. 133]

(Against the Heavenly Prophets, 1525, in Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, Vol. 40, p. 96)

St. Thomas Aquinas [p. 135]

[D]ivine power works invisibly through visible signs…. Hereby is excluded the error of certain heretics, who wish all visible sacramental signs swept away; and no wonder, for they take all visible things to be of their own nature evil, and the work of an evil author. These visible sacramental signs are the instruments of a God Incarnate and Crucified.

(Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 56: “Of the Need of Sacraments”)

St. Augustine [p. 137]

(On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1,10[11]; A.D. 420, in NPNF1, V, 268 / Ibid., 1:17:19)

Bertrand L. Conway [p. 139]

(The Question Box, New York: The Paulist Press, revised edition, 1929, 331)

G.K. Chesterton [p. 141]

(The Well and the Shallows, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1935, 233)

Summary of Multiple Citations (62 Quotations in 61 sections)

Martin Luther: 7
C.S. Lewis: 5
John Henry Newman: 5
St. Augustine: 4
Philip Schaff: 3
F.F. Bruce: 3
Bertrand L. Conway: 3
G.K. Chesterton: 2
St. Thomas Aquinas: 2
Blaise Pascal: 2
John Calvin: 2
James D.G. Dunn: 2
Ronald Knox: 2
New Bible Dictionary: 2

Meta Description: I provided a quotation at the end of each two-page section, but the paperback didn’t give source documentation: which I now provide.
Meta Keywords:  The One-Minute Apologist, Catholic apologetics, books by Dave Armstrong
"Thanks as usual for your thorough analysis.Especially your last part reminded me of the "ThingsJesusNeverSaid" ..."

Does St. Paul Sanction Premarital Sex ..."
"He's a hero alright:●"the one who is more powerful than I is coming after me” ..."

David Madison vs. the Gospel of ..."
"John 1:33Jesus' baptism is meant to help John identify who will baptize with the Holy ..."

David Madison vs. the Gospel of ..."
"Completely agree with your first paragraph.You may have a point about his anti-cult work. I ..."

Vs. James White #1: “Papal Pretensions” ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mr. Armstrong, I could not find an email address for you so I am submitting the following to you here. If you wish to see it in its entirety I believe Dr. Sungenis would be more than glad to accomodate you.

    James B. Phillips

    David Armstrong Teaching
    Falsehoods About Galileo
    By Robert Sungenis
    In his short two-page article from his new book, The One Minute Apologist, Mr.
    Armstrong tries to deal with some of the more common objections to the Catholic Church’s
    treatment of Galileo. Unfortunately, he not only gives a grossly biased and unscholarly
    treatment of the issue, he also stoops to telling flat out falsehoods.
    The main objection he tackles is: “The Galileo incident proves that
    the Catholic Church isn’t infallible” and “It also shows that
    Catholicism opposes science and scientific open-mindedness.”
    As the “One-Minute Apologist,” Mr. Armstrong begins his answer and
    Mr. Armstrong: One Church tribunal’s proclamations about Galileo
    do not overthrow the doctrine of infallibility; nor—once the facts of
    the matter are properly understood—do they show the Catholic
    Church to be opposed to science.
    The popular story of the Catholic Church’s censure of the astronomer Galileo (1564-1642) in
    1616 and 1633, supposedly for his rejection of a geocentric universe, may be the most
    notorious and famous anti-Catholic myth of them all – especially for those who believe
    religion and science are inexorably opposed.
    But the truth of the matter is that Catholic dogma had never enshrined geocentrism, and
    Galileo (a faithful Catholic) had been supported in his scientific work by many notable
    churchmen, including three popes. Indeed, his biographer Giorgio de Santillana stated that
    “It has been known for a long time that a major part of the church intellectuals were on the
    side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.”1
    R. Sungenis: Let’s take Mr. Armstrong’s claims one at a time. He first claims that “Catholic
    dogma had never enshrined geocentrism.” I’m not sure what Mr. Armstrong means by the
    metaphor “enshrined,” but I assume he is trying to say that the Catholic Church never made
    an infallible dogma about geocentrism. If that is the case, let’s ask Mr. Armstrong if he
    believes and practices things in his Catholic faith that have never been taught infallibly by
    the Church? If he knows anything about his Catholic faith he would have to give a hearty
    affirmative to that question. In fact, most of what Catholics believe and practice today has
    1 The Crime of Galileo (University of Chicago Press, 1955), xii-xiii.
    never been stated infallibly. Most of our faith and morals comes from the Ordinary
    Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium is rarely singled out as infallible dogma. There
    have been only two definite instances of the exercise of papal infallibility. The first was in
    1870 when the doctrine of papal infallibility was decreed as a doctrine in itself, and the
    second was in 1950 when the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was decreed. Every other
    teaching by the popes, past and present, has never been officially defined as an ex
    cathedra, infallible, and irreformable teaching. Of course, the Church could go back and
    analyze various teachings of past popes in order to decide whether one or the other was
    teaching infallibly on a given issue, but she has never done so, and thus there is no list of
    infallible papal teachings. Suffice it to say, Mr. Armstrong has no way of knowing whether
    the decrees against Galileo were not infallible, since the Church has never officially stated
    they were not infallible. He can only go by his own judgment which, of course, is fallible.
    Irrespective of the problem of what in past Catholic history is infallible, let’s look at the
    Ordinary Magisterium. I don’t think too many people will argue that the Ordinary
    Magisterium of the Catholic Church both condemned Galileo and the doctrine of

  • Hi James,

    My e-mail address is available by clicking the link on the sidebar, just below my profile there.

    I have neither time nor desire to interact with this. I know Bob's position, and disagree with it. My own position regarding Galileo has been laid out in several papers and in my new book on science.

    If Bob wants to start critiquing me now, let him do it if he must. I've deliberately stayed out of all the internal conflicts between him and other apologists / Catholics, and he knows this. I don't think it is wise or prudent for him to start writing against my positions now, but I also believe in free speech, so he is free to do as he wishes.

    I am also free to decide how to spend my time, and I choose to do so in defending Christianity and Catholicism in particular against the charges of atheists, not misguided accusations of fellow Catholics that I have inaccurately presented things.

  • Would you be so kind as to tell me where this article by Sungenis appears on the Internet? I searched on his site and did a general search, and have not yet found it.

  • Hi Dave,

    As per your comment on Tue Nov 02, 07:44:00 PM EDT, Dr. Sungenis' article may be seen at http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Dave_Armstrong_Teaching_Falsehoods_About_Galileo.pdf. If for any reason this link does not work you may wish to simply go to Dr. Sungenis' website http://catholicintl.com/ and then scroll down to the article titled David Armstrong Teaching Falsehoods about Galileo in "The One Minute Apologist."

    Frankly Dave, I found this article to be rather devastating in terms of its solid critique of your own writing on the subject of the the Galileo controversy.

    Since you say in your comment at Tue Nov 02, 07:38:00 PM EDT that you "believe in free speech," I trust that you will allow my comment here to remain on your blog site. In this way your audience, if it chooses, may go to Dr. Sungenis' article and decide for themselves on this very important issue of geocentrism. Having said this, let it be known, however, that the Catholic Church has decided very decisively on the issue of geocentrism. Her decision if FOR geocentrism and AGAINST heliocentrism. I beg you — for your own good and for the good of all those souls who look to you for guidance and instruction — to please, please re-examine your contentions regarding geocentrism. This subject should neither be ignored nor marginalized by Catholics. It should be an integral part of our faith as Catholics and we should not be ashamed of declaring to the world the truth of the physical design of God's universe. If we are ashamed of proclaiming this truth to others what does that say of us as Catholics?

    James B. Phillips