Last I heard, King was Presbyterian, not Baptist.
Apart from that correction, what can you expect? King has been bearing false witness of dishonesty against his opponents for as long as he's written on the Internet. See, e.g.,:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologeti...getics/
a112.htm
There's an abysmal lack of philosophical training in most schools, particularly in Bible colleges and American Reformed seminaries. You've noted previously that presuppositionalism inevitably degenerates to sophistry even among its best practitioners (e.g., Van Til, Bahnsen). For a presupp sophist, these sorts of ad hominem attacks on honesty are thought to be legitimate despite their irrationality. In their perverse, sophistical apologetic, this actually counts as giving an answer. And as unlikely as it might seem that people might sincerely not understand basic standards of argumentation, I am convinced that this is actually the case:
http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot....n-in-
logic.html
King simply assumed that you were engaging in the same fallacious sophistry that he uses. The notion that you were simply pointing out that his entire argumentative strategy was sophistical, that the entire presuppositionalist attack-the-other-guy's-honesty approach is itself ridiculous, never even crossed his mind. And note that the attacks on honesty in lieu of substantive refutation, treating matters outside the argument (like personal antipathy) as if they were the subject of the argument, is hardly unique to King:
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=2220
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=2217
I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who grants the legitimacy of the presuppositional approach, because it grants a premise that contradicts reality (namely, that reality doesn't actually dictate our knowledge), and once you grant a contradiction, you can prove anything. King is constantly making fallacious arguments against Catholicism, but when you accept absurd premises (like Scripture as the ultimate epistemological authority), you derive absurd conclusions. Even intelligent and knowledgable people will suffer from that consequence, which is resulted in the mistakes of both presuppositionalists (e.g., Van Til, Clark, Frame, Bahnsen) and Reformed epistemologists (e.g., Plantinga, Wolterstorff). Look at the following exercise in illogic, which both White and King have endorsed, and see if there is any rational argument against Catholicism here:
http://www.christiantruth.com/ba...om/
bahnsen.html
When you sacrifice reason to faith, what you say doesn't make sense. And what King says doesn't make sense. It's that simple.
I would expect nothing less from a guy who claims that pretty much all the Fathers believed in sola Scriptura.
King responds on Swan's blog:
Unlike you Mr. Armstrong, I'm not after your respect, and I really don't care what you think of me (John 12:43). I never have and I never will. Moreover, I'm not interested in responding to you any more, because I've had my say, and you've had yours, and with that I'm very content. I don't have an ego that needs to be pampered. You don't see me whining about the nasty stuff you wrote about me, all in your most gracious and loving spirit of course. 
The reason you have not interacted with me much is due to the foul language you used in some email exchanges with me years ago, and that's enough to acquaint me with the kind of man you are, and to convince me that I have better things to do.
This is a lie, too. I don't know where King comes up with this claptrap, but he manages to do it. In charity, I will conclude that he has a faulty memory and is confusing me with someone else. That's far more charity and benefit of the doubt than he has ever extended to me.
But that's okay. I have respect for pastors, even very unpleasant, anti-Catholic ones like Pastor King. The truth will be known in its entirety one day; thank God.
I've read the Bahnsen sola scriptura article, and really I think it is pretty poor.
As far as I can tell, his points are these:
1. We must not rely upon human wisdom when it comes to our understanding of God and how we are to live. Instead, we ought to rely upon divine revelation.
2. Divine revelation was originally given in both written and oral form.
3. The written and oral forms of revelation were identical in their content.
4. The oral form no longer exists.
5. Therefore we have only the written form of divine revelation.
It seems to me that the first point is wrong to the extent that it rules out any place for the validity of reason - something that Bahnsen probably would have insisted upon, as a presuppositionalist.
The second point isn't really controversial to a Catholic.
The third point is completely unsubstantiated rubbish. Nowhere in the article/speech did he ever provide anything like a defense of this assertion, and frankly it's ridiculous. He couldn't possibly prove this, especially on his own terms (given his "argument" for his fourth point).
The fourth point is equally nonsense: at no time does he go further in addressing apostolic succession than to say "the apostles are dead" (something he repeats more than once, as if repetition is argument).
He can never get to #5, because he failed so miserably on 3 and 4 (and even #1 requires we concede a lot of ground that we really don't need to give up).
Need more evidence of anti-intellectualism? How about the claim that not having an education means you are like Jesus? Proof positive that anti-Catholicism rots your brain.
I did find the Apolonio parady funny. You are right that it dodges the question becayse James White is claiming to be scholarly and Jesus never claimed that.
It seems Steve Hays thinks James White is like Jesus and that Mother Teresa is just pathetic. If you buy that then you are probably beyond rational discourse. Take a look. You need to have a strong stomach to read the sophist trashing the saint.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2...-
boyfriend.html
Someone posted a link to this reply post, right underneath King's hit piece at the Areopagus board (dated 8-31-07):
http://p102.ezboard.com/fntrmind...1.topic&
index=1
This person added:
"There are two sides to every story. Let the reader judge.
"Dave Armstrong is not responsible for this post and has no knowledge of it being posted."
Let's see how long it lasts. James Swan objects to Pat Madrid's board not allowing links to James White's site. He himself linked to King's piece on this site. So if they delete this comment, it'll be the same exact shortcoming that Swan decries on Madrid's forum.
The post mentioned above was deleted within twelve hours' time. Par for the course over there. Pastor King shows himself an intellectual coward as well as a liar.
The poster, InAllFairnessToDave, has been banned from the Areopagus.
Oh, great, so it is more than a deletion; now he / she is banned. Excellent! Just like Swan on Madrid's forum!
Be sure to check out the latest revealing nonsense on the Areopagus thread King started (as long as it lasts):
http://p102.ezboard.com/fntrmind...1.topic&
index=2
Some highlight insults from "DiscipledbyHim":
Why you'd want to link to the embarassing emoting of Ego Armstrong is your business, but this smells too much like DA trying to get some attention by ghost posting a link to he and Prejeans self congratulatory jibberish.
His hatred for his Protestant "brethren" is always on display on his site, and is at worst, a great demonstration of what a hypocrite is. I am embarrassed for him, and even more embarrassed that I visited his site.
Defender of mine: "Do you really think Dave Armstrong would post anonymously here? That would be just one more thing that could be used against him."
I absolutely do. He is childish, and definitely not beyond doing or saying things of a bizarre or silly nature.
I have been to his site plenty of times, its the site that churns out much sophistry and hardly any substance , It also has some disturbing pictures of a guy in a tree and some other troubling images.
I don't consider RC's "brethren" in the general sense of the term. What you should be more concerned about is your/DA's use of the word "brethren" and then consider his attitude towards them. Where's the love?
Well since the last post was deleted I'll post it here. It's a reply to DiscipledByHim (DBH)
Me from a previous post:
Do you really think Dave Armstrong would post anonymously here? That would be just one more thing that could be used against him.
DBH:
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
I absolutely do. He is childish, and definitely not beyond doing or saying things of a bizarre or silly nature.
Me:
You mean like posting publicly about someone's misinformation or for years talking about being cussed out in an e-mail, in a place where the other person is not allowed to respond? Oh wait, that wasn't Dave Armstrong.
Speaking of which, the one venue where Dave almost had the chance to respond (and he did) his comments (most of them) were deleted and new comments were disabled. Here's the link http://beggarsallreformation.blo...-
armstrong.html
DBH:
Actually, you're wrong. I have been to his site plenty of times, its the site that churns out much sophistry and hardly any substance , It also has some disturbing pictures of a guy in a tree and some other troubling images. - I am quite sure I have the right one. I am more embarrassed for the substance of the posting though, much less of the artistic layout of the website design.
Me:
What a sweeping accurate observation.
DBH:
I haven't posted anything in regards to my affection towards Roman Catholics, way to read in between the lines though. The comments about DA's behavior must have been spot on though, they obviously struck a chord.
Me:
So I guess "E-Papists out there in Never-NeverLand" was a loving description?
DBH:
Fact is, I don't consider RC's "brethren" in the general sense of the term. What you should be more concerned about is your/DA's use of the word "brethren" and then consider his attitude towards them. Where's the love?
Me:
In what sense, if at all, do you consider RC's brethren? I know Dave distinguishes between Protestants anti-Catholic (regardless of whether or not you agree with that term) and not anti-Catholic, but he's never denied that Protestants are christian. He's even recommended the writings of those he considers anti-Catholic. But maybe that proves how mean and hateful he is.
I'm sorry, you didn't use the word mean.
DBH:
When do you plan on abiding by the forum's rules as documented above?
Me:
I have abided by the forum rules. I changed my name to post the link because I didn't want to spend a lot of time posting posts like this one (which is going to be my last one here on this subject). I just felt that Dave should have the oppurtunity to answer his critics.
In conclusion, once again Dave Responds http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
2...esentation.html
This post was deleted around 4 or 5am this morning.
Thanks for the support, Richard! It's a no-win situation with anti-Catholics, though. It takes God's grace to break through that wall.
Commenting by HaloScan
