Author Archive for: DrOakley

This interaction is simply one of the clearest the “blog wars” has produced on the vast difference between rCism and a vision based upon biblical teaching concerning the centrality of the gospel. A must read. Update: In responding to a Roman Catholic correspondent, Mr. Johnson wrote, “The only thing I would say in response to your comment is that hopefully

For those who have never been in the midst of a debate on what Augustine meant in Sermon 131, those words may not be familiar. But they were suggested by the PlaidMan, and I thought they fit very well. As Alexander continues his crazed rampage, the picture he paints of me becomes ever more distorted, so that all who actually

For years I’ve heard about him. Tan Book Publishers (super conservative Roman Catholic publisher) still prints his book, The Catholic Controversy (Bethany House named my book, hence, no, there is no connection), a series of tracts he wrote that are specifically aimed at converting Calvinists to Roman Catholicism. Many a modern Roman Catholic has referred me to de Sales’ work

In the realm of the theological blogosphere today the conjunction of the great luminaries of reformed Catholicism collided in what observers called a “near black hole incident” wherein TGE and Alexander the Coppersmith piled laud and congratulations upon l0g0s for his stunning ability to take a comment about my consistency in holding to one particular view, ignore that context, and

This audio from a Q&A session was sent to me recently, and it is quite interesting to hear Bahnsen defend the Southern Presbyterian view, and specifically to defend the concept of offering baptism to a person who has come to Christ out of Roman Catholicism, for Rome, Bahnsen well knew, is not a true church. I wonder if the “reformed

On the papacy, Reformed Catholics have not automatically ruled out the continuing historical institution of the papacy. Many of us see it as a providential tool of God through the centuries designed to aid in protecting and guiding the Church.

1) I do not know if Mr. Johnson is just being difficult or just does not understand much of what I am saying, but it would be a great exercise in futility to go back over each of the many “no, you completely missed the entire point of what I just said” portions of his response.  2) As someone in

I am such a horrible person. Or so Jimmy Akin says, and hence, it must be true. I mean, my horrible attitude must be the reason for his constant mocking tone and derogatory statements. Has to be. What other reason could there be? Well, I guess he might be so very snippy because he’s so busy. His current blog makes

So how did Akin respond to being provided with the refutation of his errors on Greek grammar? Well, “it’s all misdirection, I tell you! Sure I put this out in a debate, and sure I put it in writing, and sure I defended it on the air, and no, I can’t defend it because I don’t know what I’m talking

Dave Armstrong is trumpeting NT Wright and Andrew Sandlin on his blog today. Shouldn’t surprise anyone. Note these two statements from Wright and Sandlin and ponder them well:  They need not know “theology” to be saved; they do need to know that Jesus and His redemptive work is their only hope and that in trusting Him, they are abandoning themselves

Below I noted, very briefly and mainly in passing for those who have no earthly idea what terms like “canonization” and “beatification” and the like mean, what is going on regarding Anne Catherine Emmerich. I was just doing a quick “blog run” and discovered that Akin invested a major size chunk of his blog today to what I call the

Several vocal critics have recently adopted the tactic of merely pasting from their files all manner of scathingly damnatory citations about “Papists” and “idolatry” and so forth from Calvin and other 16th century Protestants. Much virtual ink has been spilled about the “inconsistency” of the Reformed Catholics in attempting to deal more charitably with Roman Catholics. Observations: 1) When rC’s

This exchange is way too long for the blog, but it is relevant to many of the current issues. I have added my response to the previous article. However, let me post just the start of the response: Mr. Johnson replied shortly after I posted this response. The final paragraph of that reply reads: Yes, Athanasius and other apologists defended