{"id":141,"date":"2014-04-26T18:48:00","date_gmt":"2014-04-26T22:48:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti-catholic-review-of-rod-bennetts-book-four-witnesses-part-iii.html"},"modified":"2017-05-25T14:08:24","modified_gmt":"2017-05-25T18:08:24","slug":"reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html","title":{"rendered":"Ken Temple’s “Review” of Rod Bennett’s Book, “Four Witnesses”: Part III"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
\"WhoreOfBabylon\"<\/a><\/div>\n
\n

\u00a0Hans Burgkmair the Elder (1473-1531),\u00a0The Whore of Babylon; sitting on the seven-headed beast, St John and the angel looking on from a cloud in top right corner<\/em>.\u00a0From a series of 21 woodcuts of the Apocalypse for Martin Luther\u2019s translation of the New Testament (Augsburg: S. Otmar, 1523)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

(4-26-14)<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

See Part I<\/a> and Part II<\/a><\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

[link to the article<\/a> being critiqued below]<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
Introduction:<\/b><\/div>\n
\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
Page 11 \u2013 Rod is wrong about the meaning of Sola Scriptura.\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cRaised in a strong, Bible-believing branch of Protestant Evangelicalism, I was taught to glory in the famous Reformation rallying cry of \u201cSola Scriptura\u201d \u2013 the fiery conviction that the Bible and the Bible alone constitutes the basis for Christian belief.\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

This may be the sentiment and mis-understanding that Rod, in his experience, felt, and this is a very common idea about what Sola Scriptura is, but it is incorrect.\u00a0 Rather \u201cSola Scriptura\u201d says that the Bible is the only infallible<\/i><\/b> rule for faith, doctrine, and practice for the church.\u00a0 It does not say it is the \u201conly\u201d basis for Christian belief; rather it is the \u00a0\u201conly infallible rule\u201d. \u00a0\u00a0So, Protestants believe in secondary authorities that are good and useful, but not infallible, such as local church elders\/teacher\/pastors\/overseers, whose ministry is to teach the Scriptures properly and interpret the Scriptures properly(but we can never claim that any human is infallible); also consulting church history, historical theology, great writers and theologians of the past, ancient creeds, ancient councils, doctrinal statements, good exegetical commentaries.\u00a0<\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
That\u2019s fine (it\u2019s what I understand the definition of sola Scriptura<\/i> to be and how I define it in my two books against it); however, Rod may have been using the word \u201cbasis\u201d in the sense of \u201c[implied, infallible] rule of faith\u201d. In any event, Rod, on the same page and the next one, acknowledges that the best Protestants did indeed make recourse to history:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

Even Luther and Calvin \u2014 the very men who taught us Sola Scriptura<\/i> in the first place \u2014 knew and respected these venerable saints whom ancient custom has given the title Fathers of the Church<\/i>. They quite often used the writings of early giants like Ambrose and Augustine to bolster their various arguments.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus, Ken leaves a false impression (by the ever-present selective citation) that Rod thinks Protestantism teaches an absolute, Bible-Only view. This is untrue.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
Page 11 \u2013 When discussing the various Evangelical groups and churches Rod was a part of, he talks about the Evangelical spirit of always seeking to base things on the pure New Testament Church.\u00a0 He states,\u00a0 \u201cNot one of them had ever sent me back to any first or second-century documentation for evidence.\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
But on the same page, what Ken conveniently omits <\/i>is the sentence immediately before<\/i> the one above, where Rod also made reference to these groups \u201cwhose publicly announced intention was \u2018to restore the pure Christianity of the early Church.\u2019 \u201d Thus he shows that his own experience with Protestantism was not a phenomenon of Bible Only with no Church history whatever (only inadequate particular <\/i>knowledge of that history). Things must be interpreted in context<\/i>. Ken ignored the context both before and after Rod\u2019s statement that he knocked down (likely misunderstanding it in the first place). Or he saw the context, but chose only to cite things that give an impression that Ken wishes to create<\/i>, rather than what Rod actually was trying to express<\/i>. This will not do. Readers can see through this dubious technique, once it is exposed for what it is.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
p. 14 \u2013\u00a0 Seems to imply that the early church fathers were more clear than the Scriptures themselves.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I don\u2019t see that he implied it at all<\/i>. He commented on the fathers\u2019\u00a0 \u201cclear, unambiguous teaching . . . the actual doctrine of primitive Christianity set down in black and white.\u201d He made no comparison<\/i> of that with Scripture. It would be like someone saying, \u201cwow, this river here is so clear!\u201d and someone else concluding that he therefore thought it was clearer than some other<\/i> particular river. Maybe so, but that can\u2019t be determined by a self-referential statement of that sort. Ken assumes it because it is what he imagines Rod to be saying, according to the usual caricature that Catholics think Scripture is an utter mystery that no one can figure out (I exaggerate some, but not much).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

Ken then makes a point about the equivalency of elders and bishops in 1 Clement, claiming that\u00a0\u201coverseers\/bishops (Greek:<\/span>\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u2013<\/span> episcopois ) is the same office as elders (Greek: \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u2013 <\/span><\/span>presbuterous).\u201d<\/span> <\/span><\/span>I already dealt with that argument at length in Part I; also offering various clear New Testament evidences of ecclesiastical hierarchy. No need to reiterate it here, except to note one thing.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

He tries to enlist St. Irenaeus in favor of his notion expressed above (Against Heresies<\/i>, 4:26:5). But elsewhere the saint is very clear as to the primacy and \u201cpre-eminent authority\u201d of the Roman See, with which \u201cevery Church should agree\u201d. That sure sounds like a higher level of authority of the Roman bishop in relation to other bishops. He possesses the primacy. The Roman See is preeminent because it was founded by Peter and Paul, and Irenaeus also makes reference to \u201capostolical tradition\u201d which has been passed down through apostolic succession (cf. 4:26:2<\/a>). It\u2019s Catholic all-around, and very foreign to a Protestant outlook:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (Against Heresies<\/i>, 3, 3, 2; ANF, Vol. I)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/div>\n
p. 54 \u2013 \u201cthe church had been preaching the gospel, saving souls, and founding congregations all over the Near East for at least ten years before a single line of the New Testament was written.\u201d\u00a0 While this is technically true, it seems the way it is framed is to make the reader downplay the importance of the written word. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Not at all. That is Ken\u2019s hostile and cynical assumption. When the Catholic makes any point at all about Scripture that is contrary to sola Scriptura<\/i>, then it is said that they are denigrating the Bible. We\u2019re gonna hear this false charge till Kingdom Come. The Protestant of Ken\u2019s sort can\u2019t seem to grasp that by saying Tradition and Church are also <\/i>authoritative with Scripture, it\u2019s not required to be \u201cagainst\u201d Scripture. The fact remains that Tradition and Church played a supremely important role, especially during the period that canonization was still taking place.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
For the anti-Catholic Protestant like Ken, in order to truly respect and honor Holy Scripture, one must adhere to sola Scriptura<\/i>. He acts as if the Bible and sola Scriptura<\/i> are almost identical, and that no one could possibly respect the Bible without holding to the late-arriving, unbiblical notion of sola Scriptura<\/i>. But this is completely false and an untrue \u201cequivalence.\u201d That leads to silly statements like the above. The Bible is revered if it is regarded as the inspired, infallible, revelation from God; it\u2019s not required to believe it is the only infallible source of authority (which it itself does not teach, and massively contradicts!) in order to revere it.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

\nKen then goes on to make trite, inane, rather silly and logically circular arguments about tradition and Scripture. I\u2019m afraid I don\u2019t have the patience to deal with them (having done so many times before), seeing that they are not directly addressing Rod\u2019s arguments. I\u2019ll have to refer readers to my two books on sola Scriptura<\/i> (one<\/a> \/ two<\/a>), and web page<\/a> on the same topic.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

\n<\/span><\/span>Clement mentions 1 Corinthians in his letter \u2013 1 Clement 47 <\/span>. . . <\/span>Clement quotes from OT and NT passages . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Big wow. This is quite a minimalistic statement, and proves little or nothing with regard to the overall thrust of Ken\u2019s argument. What he neglects<\/i> to tell his readers is that St. Clement of Rome cites, alludes to, or names as authentic, only ten books out of the 27 in the New Testament (Matthew, John, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter). See Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible<\/i> (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), chart on p. 109.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
So all of Paul\u2019s letters and for sure the 3 synoptic gospels and Acts were already written by this time, along with 1 Peter. These are almost 30 years before Clement.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Great; I\u2019m absolutely delighted that Ken pointed this out, as it is a great aid to the Catholic argument. Assuming this is true, why, then, Does St. Clement show no knowledge of Mark, Luke, Acts,\u00a0 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, and five other NT books? Ken apparently assumes that he does merely because they were already written, but that doesn\u2019t follow. Only the hard evidence of what we know establishes his point, not bald assumptions that because a biblical book exists, therefore everyone in the early Church was aware of it.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\n

Rod seems to emphasize that Clement had nothing to go by except the claim that he was taught by Peter himself and everything was all oral and in their memories and hearts. <\/span><\/p>\n

No; Rod emphasized that the canon was incomplete, so that Tradition and Church were that much more important as a result. The fact remains that from what we know, Clement knew about or used in his letters, only ten out of 27 New Testament books. That\u2019s not exactly a \u201cgrand slam\u201d bit of information for sola Scriptura<\/i> in the 1st century Church.<\/p>\n

p. 62 \u2013 \u201c. . . the proud city of Rome must learn to look where Clement looked \u2013 to the simple man to whom the Good Shepherd said, \u201cFeed My sheep.\u201d Rod is trying to build the case that the deposit of correct doctrine was in the person of Peter, in his office as bishop of Rome or \u201cPope\u201d, in Rome, passed on to Clement, and that that was the solution to the problem of disunity and Gnosticism at the time of 1 Clement. Rod seems to imply that Clement is a \u201cliving voice\u201d of authority and can solve the disunity problems by commanding obedience.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Absolutely. St. Irenaeus made the same argument some 100 years later, as we have seen. St. Irenaeus always grounded his anti-heretical arguments in apostolic succession and the fact that no heresy could trace its beliefs back to the beginning in unbroken succession. That was sufficient in his mind to prove falsity of the belief, even if biblical argumentation is not yet introduced. The argument is already won against the heretic, by that fact. And it works against Protestants, too, in instances where they hold to doctrines that started in the 16th century and have no pedigree in Church history.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I Clement has a passage that teaches that justification is by faith alone, . . . (1 Clement 32)<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Here is a classic case of Ken\u2019s constant technique of citing one aspect of a thing while ignoring other equally relevant passages that contradict his assertion based on the half-truth presentation that he thinks is compelling. It\u2019s cute and amusing but intellectually detestable. In the same book it\u2019s stated: \u201cFor her faith and <\/b>hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved<\/b>\u201d (12:1). That ain\u2019t faith alone. It\u2019s faith and hospitality (a work) leading to salvation.\u00a0 And again, St. Clement shows an emphasis not unlike St. James:<\/div>\n
\n
Let us therefore cleave unto those to whom grace is given from God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being lowlyminded and temperate, holding ourselves aloof from all back biting and evil speaking, being justified by works and not by words<\/b>. (30:3)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/div>\n
Keeping God\u2019s ordinances and commandments is directly tied to salvation (just as it is at least 50 times in the Bible):<\/div>\n
\n

Receive our counsel, and ye shall have no occasion of regret. For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he, who\u00a0 with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without regretfulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are given by God<\/b>, be enrolled and have a name among the number of them that are saved<\/b> through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory unto Him for ever and ever. Amen. (58:2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
So much for that<\/i> silly argument . . .<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
* * * * *<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0Hans Burgkmair the Elder (1473-1531),\u00a0The Whore of Babylon; sitting on the seven-headed beast, St John and the angel looking on from a cloud in top right corner.\u00a0From a series of 21 woodcuts of the Apocalypse for Martin Luther\u2019s translation of the New Testament (Augsburg: S. Otmar, 1523) [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons] *** (4-26-14) *** […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":3582,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,239],"tags":[858,855,2361,240,857,856],"class_list":["post-141","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-fathers-of-the-church","tag-four-witnesses","tag-anti-catholic","tag-anti-catholicism","tag-church-fathers","tag-ken-temple","tag-rod-bennett"],"yoast_head":"\nKen Temple's "Review" of Rod Bennett's Book, "Four Witnesses": Part III<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Anti-Catholic polemicist Ken Temple did a hatchet job on my friend Rod Bennett's excellent patristics book, "Four Witnesses." I call him out.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ken Temple's "Review" of Rod Bennett's Book, "Four Witnesses": Part III\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Anti-Catholic polemicist Ken Temple did a hatchet job on my friend Rod Bennett's excellent patristics book, "Four Witnesses." I call him out.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-04-26T22:48:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-25T18:08:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2014\/04\/WhoreOfBabylon.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"484\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html\",\"name\":\"Ken Temple's \\\"Review\\\" of Rod Bennett's Book, \\\"Four Witnesses\\\": Part III\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2014-04-26T22:48:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-25T18:08:24+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Anti-Catholic polemicist Ken Temple did a hatchet job on my friend Rod Bennett's excellent patristics book, \\\"Four Witnesses.\\\" I call him out.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ken Temple’s “Review” of Rod Bennett’s Book, “Four Witnesses”: Part III\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ken Temple's \"Review\" of Rod Bennett's Book, \"Four Witnesses\": Part III","description":"Anti-Catholic polemicist Ken Temple did a hatchet job on my friend Rod Bennett's excellent patristics book, \"Four Witnesses.\" I call him out.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ken Temple's \"Review\" of Rod Bennett's Book, \"Four Witnesses\": Part III","og_description":"Anti-Catholic polemicist Ken Temple did a hatchet job on my friend Rod Bennett's excellent patristics book, \"Four Witnesses.\" I call him out.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2014-04-26T22:48:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-25T18:08:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":484,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2014\/04\/WhoreOfBabylon.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html","name":"Ken Temple's \"Review\" of Rod Bennett's Book, \"Four Witnesses\": Part III","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-04-26T22:48:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-25T18:08:24+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Anti-Catholic polemicist Ken Temple did a hatchet job on my friend Rod Bennett's excellent patristics book, \"Four Witnesses.\" I call him out.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2014\/04\/reply-to-ken-temples-extensive-anti_26.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ken Temple’s “Review” of Rod Bennett’s Book, “Four Witnesses”: Part III"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=141"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3582"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}