Books by Dave Armstrong: “Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical”

Books by Dave Armstrong: “Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical” July 10, 2014
Cover (555 x 857, 140K)

[completed on 2 August 2014; 245 pages. Accepted for publication by Sophia Institute Press on 11 November 2014; published on 7 July 2015]

[cover design by Coronation Media in collaboration with Perceptions Design Studio]

—– To purchase, go to the bottom of the page —–
“Dave Armstrong is a master of biblical citation and compressing arguments. He does in a few pages what many apologists take chapters to accomplish.”
Al Kresta, Host of Kresta in the Afternoon
“A treasure-trove of biblical texts demonstrating the veracity of the Catholic Faith. This is a must-read for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.”
Tim Staples, Catholic apologist (at Catholic Answers) and Author
“Sophia Press is offering a collection of eighty short essays by Catholic convert and apologist Dave Armstrong, entitled Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical. Reading this is very like reading a collection of’s commentaries by Phil Lawler or myself; the little essays are drawn chiefly from Armstrong’s excellent work online addressing questions that come up again and again as Protestants challenge the faith of their Catholic neighbors. A great many individual topics are covered, but the subtitle will give you the idea: ‘From priestly celibacy to the Rosary’.
Dr. Jeff Mirus, review of four Sophia books, at CatholicCulture.Org (8-18-15)

[slightly different chapter titles in some cases, from the published book, which also doesn’t contain the larger categories (in Roman numerals)]
Introduction [see below]
I. Bible and Tradition (Authority)
1.Tradition is Not Always a Bad Word in Scripture +
2. The Catholic “Three-Legged Stool” vs. Sola Scriptura
3. Tradition: Short Reflection & Basic Explanation
4. The Bereans & “Searching the Scriptures”
5. Ten Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament
II. Doctrine of the Church (Ecclesiology)
6. The Catholic Church: Why we Accept Her Claims
7. Catholic Ecclesiology & the Jerusalem Council [read original longer dialogue]
8. Three Biblical Arguments for an Authoritative Church +
9. “Call No Man Father” & Calling Catholic Priests Father *
10. We Believe All that the Catholic Church Teaches
11. On the Scandal of the Outrageous Claim to be a Church
12. On Whether God Would Protect His Church from Error [read original longer dialogue]
13. Are Church Councils More Authoritative than Popes?
III. Priestly Celibacy
14. Short Exposition on Catholic Priestly Celibacy
15. The Celibate Priesthood as a Higher Calling
16. A New Argument for Mandatory Priestly Celibacy? [read original post and Facebook discussion]; also cited in its entirety in a Renew America column by Matt Abbott: 8-31-15]
IV.Theology of Salvation (Soteriology)
17. Works Can be Good or Bad, Just as Traditions Are
18. Faith & Works (But Not Justification) in Isaiah Ch. 1
19. Catholic Soteriology in John 3:36 (“Disobey the Son”)
20. Hebrews 3:14 (Lots of Catholic Theology on Salvation)
21. Unanswered Prayers of Jesus as a Counter-Reply to Limited Atonement
22. John 12:32 vs. John Calvin & Limited Atonement
23. God Doesn’t Predestine the Damned (2 Thess 2:10-12)
V. Purgatory and Penance
24. Prayer, Penance, & the Eternal Destiny of Others
25. The Abundant Biblical Support for Lent *
26. Divine Chastisement (or, Purgatory in This Life) *
VI. The Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass
27. Mystery is No Basis for Rejecting Transubstantiation *
28. On the Nature of Idolatry
29. “The Apostle Paul Says He is a ‘Priest’?! Where?!”
VII. Sacramentals, Devotions, and Worship
30. Sacramentalism & the Bible +
31. Biblical Support for Ritualistic & Formal Worship +
32. Is the Rosary “Vain Repetition”? *
VIII. The Communion of Saints and Angels
33. Asking Saints to Intercede is a Teaching of Jesus *
34. Praying to Angels & Angelic Intercession *
35. Worshiping God Through Images in Holy Scripture
36. Martin Luther’s Belief in the Invocation & Intercession of Mary & the Saints, as Late as 1521 [read online]
37. The False Doctrine of “Soul Sleep”
38. New (?) Biblical Argument for the Veneration of Saints: God “In” & “Through” St. Paul
IX. The Blessed Virgin Mary (Mariology)
39. Biblical Arguments for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary *
40. Holy Ground & the Perpetual Virginity of Mary *
41. Rationalist Objection to the In Partu Virginity of Mary
42. Martin Luther & the Immaculate Purification of Mary*
43. Mary’s Immaculate Conception & the Bible*
44. Quick Biblical Proof that Mary is the Mother of God
45. The Bible & the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary *
46. Mary the “Queen Mother” & “Queen of Heaven”
47. Mary as the Woman in Revelation 12 [read longer original dialogue]
48. Biblical Analogies for Marian Apparitions
X. Papal Infallibility
49. Protestant Difficulties Regarding Papal Infallibility
50. The So-Called “Infallibility Regress” Objection [read original longer dialogue]
XI. Christology and Trinitarianism
51. The Bible “Never Says that Jesus is God”? Wrong! +
52. The Holy Trinity Proven from Scripture +
53. Is Trinitarianism Demonstrable from Scripture Alone?
54. Trinitarian Baptismal Formula & “Jesus Only” Baptism
55. Should God the Father be Visually Depicted in Paintings?
56. Satan’s Tempting of Jesus as a Proof of His Divinity
57. Jesus’ Divinity & Matthew 21:16 (cf. Psalms 8:2)
58. Jesus is Explicitly, Directly Called “God” (Romans 9:5)
59. Jesus’ Agony in the Garden vs. “Be Not Anxious” [read original longer article]
XII. Marriage and Sexuality
60. Annulment is Not Catholic Divorce
61. Contraception: “Be Fruitful and Multiply” *
62. Contraception: God Blesses Parents with Children *
63. Contraception: Onan’s Sin & Punishment [read online]
64. Reply to an Attack Against NFP & Spacing of Children
65. Contraception, Murder, & the Contralife Will
66. Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Acts?
67. St. Paul’s Argument from Nature Against Homosexual Acts (Romans 1) [read original longer 
68. The Prohibition of Premarital Sex in the New Testament
69. Does 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 Sanction Premarital Sex? [read original longer dialogue]
70. Thoughts on Women’s Ordination
XIII. Hell, the Devil, and Demons
71. Philosophical Defense of the Necessity of Hell [read original longer dialogue: Parts One and Two]
72. The Stupidity of the Devil
73. Demon Possession & Modern Bible Translation Bias
74. The “Conditional” Possibility of Universalism Refuted
XIV. Philosophy, History, and Apologetics
75. Thoughts on a Perfect God Creating an Imperfect World
76. Can God be Blamed for the Nazi Holocaust?
77. The Inevitability of Development of Doctrine *
78. New Testament Proofs of Noah’s Historical Existence * [read online]
79. Jesus’ Use of Socratic Method in His Teaching [read on my Facebook page]
80. Apologetics Isn’t Saying You’re Sorry for Your Faith! + [read online]
* * * * *
* = originally published in Seton Magazine: The Premier Online Magazine for Catholic Homeschoolers (from March to July 2014). See my author page with links to all the articles.
+ = originally published in The Michigan Catholic: the official newspaper for the Archdiocese of Detroit (from May to August 2014).
 This is a collection of essays that are (1) short (usually two or three pages), (2) characterized by lots of biblical argumentation, and (3) written in defense of Catholicism (apologetics). Most of them came about as a result of my ongoing efforts to comment on issues that regularly come up in “worlds” of Catholic apologetics and theology online.
The brevity of the chapters indicates the trend in my apologetic writing for many years now: “quick,” precise answers to apologetics questions. For better or ill, this is the world that we live in, and the apologist must make efforts (as St. Paul did, and as Vatican II stressed) to meet people where they are.
I don’t deny the continuing utility and necessity of longer treatments (my “corpus” still contains plenty of those!), but most people prefer shorter essays, and their interest in theology and apologetics generally doesn’t extend to treatise-length expositions. This is all the truer for beginners in theology.
Many of these essays were written as columns for Seton Magazine, which is devoted to Catholic homeschoolers. Others came from my regular column in The Michigan Catholic, the official newspaper for the Archdiocese of Detroit. Some were originally posted as part of my work in the Internet forum of the Coming Home Network from 2007-2010 (I was the head moderator during that period), and several were initiated on Facebook. All of these essays are meant to answer the questions that people ask and to make the Catholic Faith more understandable, leading to a confident belief and the ability to “make a defense” (1 Pet. 3:15) for this Faith as opportunities arise. I hope by God’s grace I have accomplished these goals.
Thanks so much for reading, and God bless you!
Paperback from Sophia Institute Press ($19.95)
Sophia E-Book [ePub + mobi]

Paperback from ($19.95)

Last Update: 11 October 2016
"I think this hits the nail on the head. It gets truly ridiculous to try ..."

Vs. James White #3: Sola Scriptura ..."
"Just FYI, today's Crisis article is a critique of a deconversion (or more accurately, a ..."

Vs. James White #4: Eternal Security ..."
"The whole Calvinist tactic is impose an unacknowledged hierarchy of evidential weights onto various sections ..."

Vs. James White #4: Eternal Security ..."
"To be clear- I don't suppose he is simply arguing out of malice, or that ..."

Vs. James White #3: Sola Scriptura ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Hi Dave,

    Wondering what you think about the recent meeting between Kenneth Copeland and Pope Francis at the Vatican

  • I think that it has some great potential to open up some dialogue, some focus on unity instead of constant fighting..with each other…It also concerns me that many Protestant and Catholics find this so appalling. Knowing your website, being as it is, I think you would say this is a good thing. Also, by the way, a friend of mine referred his friend who was close to the RAD TRAD position and your website helped him become more balanced and closer to orthodox Catholicism.

  • I'm all for people talking and understanding each other, but I don't think much of Copeland's name-it-claim-it theology, which I critiqued as far back as 1982.

  • I agree though I would still say that pope francis reaching out is a way for us Catholics to show good faith and love. Francis' humility is contagious and beautiful….I have been reading various blogs by CAtholics and Protestants who see nothing but bad things in this..I think we are living Vatican II"s call for the new evangelization. I guess I wonder what is your take on Francis doing a lot of these things….because many people criticize him in the Church for some of these actions and I guess it just seems that he becomes so spontaneous that there may be confusion out there. I also know that not everything he does is infallible but wondering what is the right response to something like this (as well as lifting the excommunication against the liberal theologian Gustavo Guitterez…I trust your insights and comments. Thank you always and God Bless.


  • My general apologia of the Holy Father is in my book about him. I didn't find anything disagreeable upon closer inspection.

    Thus I have not followed every "weekly controversy" since I wrote my book, since I figure it is just a variation on the same old theme. People usually approach each "incident" with false premises that themselves need to be questioned. See my book:

    I also keep collecting articles about him (from a "pro" perspective"):

  • Ken

    I read your article on Mary as Mediatrix on the Michigan Catholic.

    Your argumentation is weak, except I think that the early church fathers (Justin Martry, Tertullian, Irenaeus) who called Mary, "the New Eve" only meant she is the instrumental cause of salvation (means of bringing the Messiah into the world) – those 3 early church fathers never wrote anything about praying to her or making statues of her, or her being a Mediatrix, etc.

    The weakest aspect of your argumentation is that Mary as Mediatrix is a direct contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:5. You did not even mention that verse or try to deal with it. The one mediator, who sacrificed Himself for us, and prays for us now is Christ Jesus – Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25, 9:24, 1 John 2:1.

  • Ken

    all the examples are of how God uses humans who are living who pray, evangelize, serve, suffer as instruments of spreading grace –

    none of them point to dead people praying for us.

    the only one that is not a living human being is "the seven spirits before the throne" in Revelation 1:4-5.

    that seems to be about the fulness of the Holy Spirit – the seven characteristcs of the Spirit of God in Isaiah 11:2 that will rest on the Messiah.

    So, no dead saints are to be called upon to pray for us. We should not pray to or talk to the dead.

    I found something that I agree with you on –

    I think you are right that "grace to you" means more than justifying grace at the point of conversion/salvation – it means more grace to grow, persevere in the faith in the midst of trials and suffering, and grace to become more and more holy.

  • Same old same old, Ken. Only God can open your eyes to see these things that you are blind to. Rational argument has never worked when it comes to you and Catholicism. But that's okay. God is infinitely patient. Whatever it takes to bring you into the fold, He'll do. It just won't be through these kinds of Bible-based arguments.

  • Ken

    Same old same old, Ken.

    Your arguments for your side are also "same old same old"

    Only God can open your eyes to see these things that you are blind to.

    That's a very good Calvinistic and Biblical truth. Acts 16:14; John 6:44, 6:65; Luke 24:45 ; 2 Cor. 4:4-6

    Rational argument has never worked when it comes to you and Catholicism.

    You "rationalized", but it was not a very Biblically based argument with common sense and reason. Common sense and reason and rational argument should get you to see that praying to the dead and praying to statues is wrong and unBiblical. That giant Mary picture of her statue is hideous – she did not look like that either. (European looking)

    But that's okay. God is infinitely patient.

    Whatever it takes to bring you into the fold, He'll do.

    True; same sentiment I have for you to see the light of Biblical truth.

    It just won't be through these kinds of Bible-based arguments.

    They are not really Bible-based, as they contradict the Bible, as we are commanded not to pray to dead people and not to bow down to angels or statues. (Revelation 19:10; 22:9)

  • Ken

    I agree with you on the "name it-claim it" prosperity theology of Kenneth Copeland and others – it is heresy and greed and ugly and not Christianity at all. (Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, the late Kenneth Hagin, Joyce Meyers, Paula White, Leroy Thompson, Jesse DuPlantis, Joel Osteen, the late Paul Crouch, etc.) – they are heretics and mostly nuts. All of them are motivated by greed, as 2 Peter chapter 2 tells us.

    It seems like Pope Francis did not study or prepare for that "ecumenical" video he sent to them, because that movement within Pentecostalism is heresy, though other good Penetcostals who denounce the "Word of Faith" movement are not heretical.

    Where was his infallibility gift or discernment?

  • Ken

    I just read your article on Augustine calling Mary, the Spouse of the Spirit and the Mother of God – at the Seaton Magazine web-site.

    Sermon 208 does not have that. It comes from Alfonso de Liguori and "the Glories of Mary" and appears to be attribued to Augustine, but it is not in Augustine's corpus of verified works. It appears there is a "Sermon 208a" and the real "Sermon 208" (which does not have that quote)

    turretinfan blogspot dot com/2011/02/did-augustine-call-mary-mother-of-god html

    Turretinfan's excellent research on that issue –

    Did Augustine Call Mary the "Mother of God"?

    A dear reader notified me that a Roman apologist (or perhaps just a friend in the Roman church) had provided the following to them as allegedly representing Augustine's views:
    "Mary was that only one who merited to be called the Mother and Spouse of God". (Sermon 208)
    You'll notice that the person has provided a citation – the citation makes it look authentic. But, of course, I didn't stop there.

    I grabbed a copy of Augustine's "Sermons on Liturgical Seasons," since that contains the range of sermons including Sermon 208. The quotation, however, was not to be found in Sermon 208 – a sermon on the occasion of Lent.

    So, I did a little more digging. Alfonso de Liguori's "Glories of Mary," provides this same quotation and gives the Latin original ("Haec est quae sola meruit Mater et Spousa vocari.") as well as a more precise citation to an appendix of the Benedictine edition of Augustine's works.

    In fact, upon locating the sermon, I discovered that it is listed as Sermon 208(a) on the occasion of the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It's not an authentic work. There are probably a variety of ways we could prove that, but the easiest way is that it is now recognized that there was no feast of the assumption in North Africa during Augustine's lifetime. Thus, the sermon was written at some later date, and merely ascribed to Augustine.

    It's sad to see that some of Rome's advocates either knowingly or unwittingly are using falsehoods to try to promote their religion. It's one reason this blog exists – to shed the light of truth on the matter. And the truth is that Augustine did not call Mary "the Mother of God," nor would he have. In his authentic works he describes Mary this way:

    At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity.
    NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate CXIX, §1, John 19:24-30.


  • The last quality I want in a Pope is Humility.

  • Ken,

    I could say the same thing: "It's sad to see every anti-Catholic bigotted protestant advocate, either knowingly and deceitfully, or ignorantly and blindly use falsehoods to try and promote their religion. It's one reason this blog exists – to shed the light of truth on the matter."

    Your assertion that:"Augustine did not call Mary "the Mother of God," nor would he have." How do you know that he would not have? Were you there? Do you have sources to back up this claim or are you doing what I stated above? Does Augustine have to write everything down for you? I call Mary the Mother of God but I don't write it down. Did you ever stop to think that maybe Augustine didn't have to write it down because it is common sense?

    Your quote from Augustine with bold high-light proves nothing but what the Catholic Church has always taught. Perhaps you might want to try and understand just what Augustine is really saying there. You also need to go back to basic theology class to learn that Christ is both perfect man and perfect God hypostatically united. Jesus Christ is eternally begotten from the Father.

    It's pretty pathetic when anti-Catholic bigots have to assert their opinions and assumptions about what they THINK Catholics believe, versus actually attempting to listen and understand what the Catholic Church has always taught. Your bearing false witness against your neighbor by making such assertions and I think you should apologize. But I doubt that would happen since your "god" of hatred towards Catholics needs feeding.

    Here is something you said that was just hilarious! "Turretinfan's excellent research on that issue" ROTFLOL!! I nearly blew my coffee out of my nose and all over my keyboard when I read that. Too funny!

  • Ken

    Hi Mark,
    I was arguing doctrine, not against people, therefore, I am not "anti-Catholic" nor bigotted. You did not refute anything, nor interact with any of the content that Turretinfan found, and quoted from Augustine.

  • Ken

    YOU are the one who didn't address my issues. You're dodging the questions. Turrentinfan's nice little claim of "It's not an authentic work" is questionable. WHO can verify that it is not authentic? Who is/are some of the historians that claim it is not authentic? Instead of just simply making a statement proclaiming it as if it were a fact, why didn't Turrentinfan back up his assertion with a reference to the claim of non-authenticity?

    Yes, there have been many writings that have claimed to be written by St. Augustine, but is Turrentinfan a qualified forensic historian? Does he hold a degree in history, or does he have accreditation as a historical researcher? If so, maybe he should provide his credentials to prove his credibility to make such a claim. You post his "research" like it is some kind of "absolute" or a "case closed" statement. Please provide the SOURCE who can validate the claim of non-authenticity.

  • Blogger Ken said…
    Hi Mark,
    I was arguing doctrine, not against people, therefore, I am not "anti-Catholic" nor bigotted. You did not refute anything, nor interact with any of the content that Turretinfan found, and quoted from Augustine.

    You and TF are arguing from silence. You claim that St. Augustine did not believe that Mary is the Mother of God because you can't find any explicit text where he uses the term. Well, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Here's another fact you haven't considered. The term Mother of God was first used before St. Augustine was born and was used contemporaneously with him:

    Irenaeus: [A.D. 189] "The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1).

    Hippolytus [A.D. 217] ….Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World 1).

    Gregory the Wonderworker [A.D. 262] "For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies 1).
    "It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).

    Peter of Alexandria: [A.D. 305] "They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria).
    "We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324]).

    St. Augustine is well known for addressing many heresies. Yet, he did not address this practice nor call it a heresy.

    So, if you can argue from silence, so can I. This is proof that St. Augustine approved of the title, "Mother of God" and "Theotokos" with respect to the Virgin Mary.

  • Hey Dave

    Just to let you know, I purchased the paperback version of your book through Amazon a couple of nights ago. I should be receiving it next week and I'm looking forward to reading it and using it as another great tool in my arsenal.

    God Bless

  • Thanks for buying, bro!

  • Happy Birthday from one Scotsmen to another.