![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/10\/Cover-555-x-838.jpg\")
<\/a>I wanted to make sure to preserve this primarily for its comedic value and also \u2014 importantly \u2014 to document that this is what Mr. White, the Reformed Baptist and anti-Catholic polemicist, who fancies himself the best debater of Catholics, is reduced to when he is challenged. He has always<\/em><\/strong> ignored my counter<\/em>-replies, refusing to offer any substantive answer back; instead, going straight to personal insult and slander. It doesn\u2019t say much for his self-confidence or debating ability; nor for the overall self-defeating and ultra-ludicrous anti-Catholic position that he proudly represents.<\/p>\n Up till now I had linked to the Internet Archive version of this post (originally dated 23 September 2007 and posted on my\u00a0 old Blogspot blog<\/a>). Now I\u2019ll abridge it a bit and add updated links (yes, almost all of this garbage is present on his blog to this day). In 2010, after writing dozens of \u201creplies\u201d to me (mostly of this nature), White decided \u2014 except for a few Twitter potshots for old time\u2019s sake \u2014 to ignore me henceforth and pretend that I not only didn\u2019t exist<\/em>, but indeed, never<\/em> existed (in his best Orwellian 198<\/em>4-style). Other anti-Catholic polemicists, who had also \u2014 believe me \u2014 vigorously replied to me for years, did the same thing at that time (e.g., James Swan and Jason Engwer). Out of sight, out of mind! \u201cSee no evil . . .\u201d But in any event, someone<\/em> is here writing this . . .<\/p>\n White\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>. I have presently added a few things here and there.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n White\u2019s anti-Catholic comrade, the anonymous \u201cTurretinfan\u201d (who ridiculously used to do live debates with a bag over his head, but is now \u201cout\u201d), made the following claim in September 2007:<\/p>\n White certainly has made personal comments about you, as far as this writer can recall, [but] none of his responses have ever been \u201cpure personal attack\u201d and saying that [he] refuses to engage \u201cvirtually all\u201d your critiques is definitely an overstatement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I explained what I meant in context; that White \u201cnever follows through with an entire discussion with me without eventually descending into pure personal attack.\u201d It is true that sometimes he is actually substantive (albeit in error) for a short time. But by the end of that post or almost always in the next post, it becomes personal (often, entirely so).<\/p>\n This is what happened (most notoriously and infamously) in his series of reviews of\u00a0The Catholic Verses<\/em>. He got more and more personal and I got tired of it and simply left, when he accused me of \u201cknowing deception\u201d (after I showed him all the books I had read as a Protestant). Here is White\u2019s\u00a0entire post\u00a0from\u00a012-31-04<\/a> (all bolded emphases my own, throughout):<\/p>\n Armstrong\u2019s Reading List<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n I shall now document, by many examples, White\u2019s posts that are entirely composed of childish, sweeping personal insults:<\/p>\n 3\/28\/04: Dave Armstrong<\/em><\/span> [link<\/a>]<\/p>\n It is good to know that even on weekends the ever-vigilant Dave Armstrong is reading my blog. . . . DA (as he is so affectionately known by so many) posted a long, rambling response that, to be honest, has almost nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. I normally try to avoid DA when I write, since he seems to have no end of time nor any interest in actually focusing upon any one topic in his writings. In fact, he has written so much that it seems to be approaching critical mass, and may soon crash the internet due to all of his self-congratulatory self-citation. Anyway, if you dare mention him you will get a minimum of ten times the amount of text in return (witness this situation), and there is simply no end to the verbiage that can be pounded out on a keyboard connected to one of today\u2019s high-speed computers.<\/span><\/p>\n Be that as it may, what I said was 1)\u00a0DA lacks the ability to engage the text of the Scriptures in a meaningful fashion, and 2)\u00a0DA will use anything to attack the truth. Unwittingly he has proven the second proposition true in his lengthy response and the argumentation it contains. As to the first, I simply direct anyone to the \u201cexegesis\u201d presented in\u00a0A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em>, his 2001 publication. The book is\u00a0a monument to how to ignore context, avoid grammar, shred syntax, and insert the traditions of Rome willy-nilly into any passage you cite. Sadly, given how rare it is for anyone to honor the Word by engaging in serious AND believing exegesis these days, few in the pews have the process modeled for them consistently in the pulpit or the Bible Study room, and hence are impressed by even this kind of\u00a0rambling eisegesis.\u00a0DA thinks himself a modern Socrates, yet, his writing takes\u00a0wild leaps from topic to topic, inserts endless (and often gratuitous) irrelevant material\u00a0that serves only to cover the\u00a0shallow nature\u00a0of what is being said, and in the end requires one to possess the skill of nailing jello to a wall to be able to respond to it for its\u00a0utter lack of substance. Take away his quotes from the CCC and Newman, and there would be little left.<\/span><\/p>\n To demonstrate this with clarity, let me provide a contrast. DA has published a book in which he seeks to give a \u201cbiblical defense\u201d of his theology (it is much more of a defense offered by selective citations of Newman than anything else). It struck me this evening that he \u201cexplained\u201d issues regarding Hebrews 7 and Christ\u2019s priesthood in his book, and I am writing an article for a journal on the same topic. So, the best way to substantiate what I have said is to just allow the reader to decide. Below I reproduce DA\u2019s comments, and after that, my own as they will be published in an upcoming journal article. Click here for the comparison.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The second piece did actually make some arguments. I thoroughly responded to them three days later<\/a>, and was summarily ignored. This is what almost always happens with White: he may get in one<\/em> round of (semi-) rational reply, but if I counter-reply, he flees for the Arizona hills (either on foot or on his bicycle, if he has to split in a hurry to avoid a dreaded real dialogue).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Roman Catholic apologists like Dave Armstrong, who lack any meaningful ability to engage the text in a serious manner, have\u00a0no compunctions about grabbing\u00a0anything<\/i>\u00a0to use as a bludgeon against the truth.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n April 2004 was a high point in White\u2019s apologetic career, no doubt. He was filled to the brim with personal insults. Here\u2019s another entire post from 19 April 2004<\/a>:<\/p>\n 4\/19\/04: Wow, I Feel Sooooo Much Better<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n <\/b>Proving that reasoning and refutation are but minor irritations, Dave Armstrong has reposted his mauled graphic of me. However, his rather less than talented artist removed the blood from my face this time (as I said, I\u2019m so thankful and feel so much better now). And he has chosen, in his own inimitable style to post it on one of his fantasy \u201cdebates,\u201d where he takes something I\u2019ve written, works his wonderful Socratic magic (i.e. writes ten times the amount of material and hopes the verbiage will dazzle his audience), and puts \u201cDave Armstrong vs. James White\u201d at the top. You know, it never crossed my mind, back in 1988\/89 when I first started listening to tapes from\u00a0Catholic Answers<\/i>\u00a0and started replying to their claims that someday I\u2019d have\u00a0folks like DA shooting blanks at me from long range. That\u2019s OK.\u00a0Anyone who took the time to read the exegesis comparison and follow up knows the score. And proving that all things work together for the good, Angel has indicated I should be keeping my eyes on my e-mail in-box. Never know when he might provide us with one of his artistic commentaries on Mr. Armstrong\u2019s apologetic endeavors. :-)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Here is a real (and quite illuminating) classic: White\u2019s 9 1\/2 minute rant about me on his Dividing Line<\/em> webcast (20 April 2004<\/a>). I made a transcript of it. If you prefer to hear it in audio format, I have preserved that too<\/a>. Like other similar nonsense, I had removed it from my website, in charity towards White and so as to not bore my readers with White\u2019s unsavory antics. But since I was challenged, and it was insinuated that Venerable Bishop White simply doesn\u2019t do<\/em> this sort of thing, here it is, back again, for the record. The text below is a complete<\/strong>, absolutely unedited transcript for this portion of the show (lest I be accused of citing out of context). All italics represent White\u2019s own frequent emphasizing of words:<\/p>\n Those of you who have been following the blog, uh [laughter], just,\u00a0I<\/em>\u00a0don\u2019t know, what do you do with someone like Dave Armstrong, you know? I mean, really, it is a question that you face, because, just simply by being out there, I mean, uh, if you read his materials, he\u2019s very very high on himself and, uh, makes sure that you know how many books he\u2019s written.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course, they\u2019re vanity published, but how many books he\u2019s written, and uh, you read the top of his page, and it\u2019s [mocking tone] exegesis<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0history<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0apologetics<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0philosophy<\/em>\u00a0and all this stuff, and you know, in your heart of hearts, that\u00a0this<\/em>\u00a0fella, uh, bless his soul, has\u00a0no<\/em>\u00a0idea what he\u2019s talking about. He\u2019s read some books, but the important foundational stuff that allows you to actually make sense out of all that stuff, he\u2019s\u00a0clueless<\/em>; he has\u00a0no<\/em>\u00a0idea what he is talking about, but he writes\u00a0constantly<\/em>!<\/span><\/p>\n I mean, he must live on two hours of\u00a0sleep<\/em>\u00a0and must type at 130 words a minute. That\u2019s the\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0way that you could\u00a0possibly<\/em>\u00a0produce the kind of verbosity, uh, that he produces. So what do you\u00a0do<\/em>? Cuz, it\u2019s sorta, sort of; it\u2019s really disturbing to me, uh, that I hear from people, and they go, \u201cwell, well, whaddya think about what he said about\u00a0this<\/em>?\u201d And I sorta, I sorta; I, it\u2019s really hard for me to go, \u201cwell, have you really\u00a0thought<\/em>\u00a0about, you know, the\u00a0foundation<\/em>\u00a0of this argument, and the background of this argument?\u201d\u00a0People\u00a0<\/em>need to\u00a0learn how\u00a0<\/em>to\u00a0examine argumentation!<\/em>\u00a0And see through\u00a0fluff<\/em>! Uh, see through stuff that shouldn\u2019t even be\u00a0called<\/em>\u00a0an argument; it\u2019s\u00a0complimenting<\/em>\u00a0it way too much to\u00a0call<\/em>\u00a0it an argument! And [sigh] it\u2019s just, how do you\u00a0deal<\/em>\u00a0with folks like that?<\/span><\/p>\n I mean, uh, you know, he posts this\u00a0horrific<\/em>\u00a0image of me, with an arrow sticking out of my head; blood everywhere, and tries to say, well [mocking, derisive tone] \u201cyou had that Angel cartoon about Patrick Madrid and you were\u00a0stoning<\/em>\u00a0him!\u201d Actually, you know, I think Patrick, not only, since he\u2019s in\u00a0Envoy Magazine\u00a0<\/em>and they use cartoons all the time, but I think he would be, he \u2014 if you really got him on an honest moment \u2014 he would have to admit that that\u2019s one of the best caricatures of himself he\u2019s ever seen. I mean, he looks\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0in that! He really does! He looks better than, well, I think I look alright in mine, too, but he looks\u00a0good<\/em>! He looks really good. There\u2019s no arrow sticking out of his head. There\u2019s no blood anywhere. And everyone knows that it was a part of the\u00a0debate <\/em>that we specifically\u00a0talked<\/em>\u00a0about whether Moses would have\u00a0stoned<\/em>\u00a0you, had you used this kind of argumentation.<\/span><\/p>\n [Richard Pierce, President of White\u2019s Alpha and Omega Ministries] He looks better than Spurgeon did in the one with Dave Hunt.<\/p>\n Well, uh, but see, now Spurgeon was just a background thing there. I think . . .<\/span><\/p>\n [Pierce] Well, he\u2019s also being strangled.<\/p>\n [laughter] He was not being\u00a0strangled<\/em>; he had a\u00a0gag<\/em> in his mouth, but uh, uh, no, I mean, he really looks\u00a0good<\/em>! This; I\u2019m sorry, but Mr. Armstrong\u2019s artist\u00a0isn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0an artist. He has no; he shouldn\u2019t be doing what he\u2019s doing, okay? He\u2019s not\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0at this.\u00a0Angel<\/em>\u00a0is a\u00a0professional<\/em>. He knows what he\u2019s doing, and he\u2019s\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0at it, and he\u2019s making a\u00a0point<\/em>. There\u2019s no point in anything Mr. Armstrong, in his disgusting little graphic, has produced. But he\u2019s got a new one; I mentioned last night on the blog, he\u2019s got a new one; they took the\u00a0blood<\/em>\u00a0off. [laughter] It\u2019s\u00a0still<\/em> the same thing, and [laughter] if anyone\u2019s . . . do you know what they could have done, and this is so simple; this would have actually\u00a0<\/em>maybe\u00a0communicated<\/em>\u00a0something. And it might have been\u00a0funny<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n But they blew it. Uh, what they\u00a0could<\/em>\u00a0have done, is, if you look at my graphic, the one that\u2019s on my blog, the first one that Angel did for me, do you notice something about those little arrows? They\u2019re little play arrows. They have the little rubber suction cup on the\u00a0end<\/em>. If they had just taken the Roman Catholic one, with a\u00a0suction cup<\/em>\u00a0and stuck it to my\u00a0forehead<\/em>. No\u00a0blood<\/em>, and then just slightly change, the, uh, visual of the face, to one of surprise or \u201cduh\u201d or something like that, it\u00a0might<\/em>\u00a0have been\u00a0funny<\/em>! It might have actually, you know, maybe you coulda made a\u00a0point<\/em>\u00a0with it or something.<\/span><\/p>\n [Pierce] Yeah, but there\u2019s only one problem with that.<\/p>\n Uh, what?<\/span><\/p>\n [Pierce] The problem is that it would have required him to have some original artistry.<\/p>\n [laughter] That\u2019s true!<\/span><\/p>\n [Pierce ] And I would like to point out that, as the\u00a0President<\/em>\u00a0of the organization . . .<\/p>\n [laughter]<\/span><\/p>\n [Pierce] . . . [clears throat] at the bottom of the page where that appears . . .<\/p>\n It\u2019s got a little copyright there.<\/span><\/p>\n [Pierce] Copyright . . .<\/p>\n Yeah, yeah, yeah.<\/span><\/p>\n [Pierce] So in fact, Mr. Armstrong had to\u00a0steal<\/em>\u00a0it, and modify it.<\/p>\n Yeah, well, he\u2019s done that before, and I\u2019ve pointed out to him that he shouldn\u2019t do that, but anyway, that\u2019s, that\u2019s, aaah, whatever. I\u2019m not overly\u00a0concerned<\/em>\u00a0about that.<\/span><\/p>\n Um, but I am, the\u00a0point<\/em>\u00a0is, that would have been funny; that would have been, \u201coh, ha ha ha\u201d, coulda got a little chuckle about it, but the fact that Mr. Armstrong can\u2019t\u00a0see<\/em>\u00a0what the first one was all about, and refuses to acknowledge, [mocking tone] \u201cyou know, that was really dumb to post that, that was . . \u201c, you know, he just won\u2019t do that.<\/span><\/p>\n That illustrates, then, what happened in my response to his writings. When you\u00a0respond<\/em>\u00a0to him, and I don\u2019t know if anyone followed it, if they went to his blog \u2014 we provided some of the links and stuff \u2014 but, I went through, I provided, I quoted from his book, and then I quoted from the article I had written. And the whole point was to illustrate the difference in exegetical methodology. I\u00a0have<\/em>\u00a0one. He doesn\u2019t. And he doesn\u2019t because he doesn\u2019t know the field. He\u2019s just; he doesn\u2019t know what he\u2019s\u00a0doing<\/em>! I mean, that would be like my trying to, to, write to a CPA and criticize uh, an audit that he\u2019s done on a major corporation. I\u2019m not\u00a0trained<\/em>\u00a0in that. I don\u2019t know the terminology. I don\u2019t know the\u00a0basics<\/em>, the foundational\u00a0rules<\/em>\u00a0that you\u2019re supposed to do and why you put this in this ledger and why you put that \u2014 I don\u2019t\u00a0know\u00a0<\/em>that stuff. It\u2019s not my\u00a0area<\/em>, I; you can go to school and\u00a0learn<\/em>\u00a0those things. Uh, but he hasn\u2019t\u00a0done<\/em>\u00a0so.<\/span><\/p>\n And so, I just provided as an example. Well, he writes this response which has\u00a0nothing<\/em>\u00a0to do with the text; it has nothing to do with exegesis; it just simply proves my point, but that\u2019s one of the things [mocking me] \u201csee, he just ignores this.\u201d Well, okay, yeah, I\u00a0did<\/em>, because it wasn\u2019t worth\u00a0responding<\/em>\u00a0to! I mean, it\u2019s just that\u00a0bad<\/em>! So, I did respond to it, after he said I wouldn\u2019t, and so I responded to it, demonstrated that it had no connection with reality whatsoever, it was really really bad, and his response to that was basically to accuse me of attacking him, and all the rest of this stuff, which for him means, I pointed out that he doesn\u2019t know what he is talking about.<\/span><\/p>\n When do, where do you draw the line? I mean, it would be so much easier to just ignore all these people, but the problem is, we\u2019re one of those few folks that actually gets out there and we get our\u00a0hands<\/em>\u00a0dirty. We actually take on these, these individuals, and show where the argumentation\u2019s\u00a0bad<\/em>, and you\u2019re gonna end up with dirt on your hands, and on your face, when you wallow with some of these folks, and we\u00a0try<\/em>\u00a0to figure out where the line is. This guy [sigh], sadly, there are people who write recommendations of his\u00a0stuff<\/em>! I mean, you got Scott Hahn, all these folks, which\u00a0amazes<\/em>\u00a0me. Uh, because you [laughter] look at some of his\u00a0books<\/em>, and it\u2019s just like \u201cwow! there\u2019s just no\u00a0substance<\/em>\u00a0here.\u201d It\u2019s just rattle rattle rattle rattle, and quote John Henry Cardinal Newman and that\u2019s the end of the\u00a0subject<\/em>. And there\u2019s no meaningful\u00a0argumentation<\/em>\u00a0going on at all.<\/span><\/p>\n Where\u00a0<\/em>do you draw the line, because eventually, I have to trust that the people who are reading these things, and are concerned about these things can eventually go, \u201chey, wait a minute, that wasn\u2019t even a\u00a0response<\/em>; that\u2019s not even a meaningful argument,\u201d without my having to hold their hand and\u00a0show<\/em>\u00a0that to them. But, sadly, in a postmodern world, where, for a lot of folks, if you can produce a response, and\u00a0spell<\/em>\u00a0it right, that somehow\u00a0means<\/em>\u00a0something. The view of logic, rationality, the ability to examine argumentation; let\u2019s face it, folks, listen to the political dialogue in our\u00a0nation<\/em>! There\u2019s not a whole lot of meaningful\u00a0discussion<\/em> going on there! And yet you get people all excited; you know, I could play my Howard Dean [tape] here, you know. [laughter] It\u2019s just like, \u201cwhoah!\u201d People, people\u00a0look<\/em>\u00a0at this kind of stuff and as long as your\u00a0mouth<\/em>\u00a0is moving, somehow you\u2019re making a\u00a0point<\/em>! Instead of going, \u201cyou know what? That person didn\u2019t answer that question, either!, that person didn\u2019t answer\u00a0that<\/em>\u00a0question, either,\u201d wow! you know, all the rest of that kind of stuff . . . it is, it is, it\u2019s a\u00a0daily<\/em>\u00a0battle as to\u00a0how\u00a0<\/em>to decide what you respond to and what you don\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n Well, on a much\u00a0higher<\/em>\u00a0level; on a much much much higher level; uh, on a, on an\u00a0extremely<\/em>\u00a0much higherly [sic] level [derisive laughter], . . .<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
\n