Archive for category: Roman Catholicism

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let’s see how they’ve been able to rightly divide the word of

I have almost started to feel sorry for Mr. Ray. He keeps peddling the same snake oil, and it is hard to say whether this is simply because he lacks the acumen or patience to deal honestly with the Early Church Fathers or whether it is because he is simply the sort of person who makes a living profiting from

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let’s see how they’ve been able to rightly divide the word of

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let’s see how they’ve been able to rightly divide the word of

In a previous series (link to series index), we documented Steve Ray (and others) misquoting Athanasius (i.e. citing a spurious, or (at best) dubious, work as though it were authentic). Mr. Ray’s inaccurate citations, though, are not limited to Athanasius. Mr. Ray also misquotes Gregory Thaumaturgus (Thaumaturgus means Wonderworker).

After posting some updates to my original article (link), I stopped by Mr. Albrecht’s video page, hoping against hope that Mr. Albrecht might have had the sense to apologize for his own (and his fellow apologists’) misquotation of Pseudo-Athanasius as Athanasius. My hopes were dashed.

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let’s see how they’ve been able to rightly divide the word of

I was sad to see that rather than correct his quotation of a spurious work attributed to Athanasius, the man who Steve Ray has set forth to defend Mr. Ray’s miscitation of a spurious source (Mr. William Albrecht) has continued his campaign of misinformation and insult (link to video). Mr. Albrecht spends the first two minutes of his video complaining

Introduction As you may recall, we recently identified a spurious quotation from Athanasius that a number of apologists for Rome had been using, including Mr. Steve Ray. Sadly, rather than correct his error and be honest with his readers, Mr. Ray has chosen to pretend the problem doesn’t exist, directing his readers, once again, to the video musings of Mr.

   Recently Dr. White pointed out the gulf between Catholic scholarship and popular Catholic apologists. I recently read a Catholic explanation of purgatory by Zachary Hayes (“a noted Franciscan theologian and Bonaventure scholar, OFM, of the Sacred Heart Province, is a retired professor of systematic theology at the Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, where he taught for thirty-seven years” ). Reading Hayes

One common attack used by the apologists of Rome is to assert that a Protestant’s ultimate authority is private judgment or, as they sometimes pejoratively label as being “protestant personalism” or a person being his own “mini-pope.” Supposedly, this problem of private judgment is solved by referring to an infallible magisterium. In fact, however, the recourse to the infallible magisterium

It’s very popular among Rome’s apologists today, to make claims that famous church fathers, those that “Protestants” would have heard of, held to the same views as Rome teaches today. Unfortunately for Catholicism, history is not her friend. So, while occasionally a church father or two will provide some seemingly helpful material for the apologist for Catholicism, these sorts of

Patrick Madrid likes to avoid directing his readers to the “other side.” Perhaps he is afraid his readers lack sufficient discernment to read that “other side”? Or maybe he fears that they are too discerning, for they might see that Madrid is an expert at dodging the real issues? It is hard to say. His history is long with his

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let’s see how they’ve been able to rightly divide the word of

Dr. White is human. To those of us who know and love him, this is no surprise. We realize that he is a man, just like us, and that consequently he makes mistakes. As Alexander Pope said, “To err is human, to forgive divine.” Dr. White is human and he, from time to time, errs. Recently a lay apologist for

A visitor to our chat channel (timb) pointed out to me that John Martignoni, Roman Catholic apologist, is posting a “book” on his website. In the third chapter, found here, Martignoni demonstrates that no matter how many times to demonstrate a lie is a lie, as long as it promotes mother Rome, well, it’s worth repeating! Note his claims: Another

This is part 13 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Throughout the series, we have seen the Calvinist position explained with respect to each of the eleven accusations leveled against Calvinism, we have seen the accusation refuted in most cases (the exception being labeling us, like Moses and

   Recently on Catholic Answers, Steve Ray took an hour to explain how to “develop your spiritual life.” Steve explained how everything we do is “spiritual” if done under the lordship of Christ. He mentioned that even changing the diaper of a baby “is a spiritual act because I’m doing what God wants me to do at that moment.” You can

This is part 12 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 11) An agnostic, in that human reason is so damaged by the fall and total depravity, it cannot accurately reason about God and ever attain certainty. I answer: a) The

This is part 11 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 10) A liberal higher critic, since Luther can slice up the canon, it follows so might anyone. I answer: a) The Calvinist Position (whether right doctrine or error let Scripture

This is part 10 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 9) “ Un-deified, since the Logos’ holy Flesh is not your food, because there was no true henotic union.” I answer: a) The Calvinist Position (whether right doctrine or error let

This is part 9 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 8) “ An ecclesiastical relativist, because there is no authoritative Church.” I answer: a) The Calvinist Position (whether right doctrine or error let Scripture decide) God did not leave “an” institutional

This is part 8 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 7) “ A Pelagian, in that you have the same view of pre-lapsarian man as Pelagius, and what must be lost is human nature, because nature is grace.” I answer: a)

This is part 7 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 6) “ A pagan, in that the Father can damn the Son of His love in wrath, splitting the Trinity: something more akin to Zeus.” I answer: a) The Calvinist Position

This is part 6 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 5) “ A gnostic iconoclast, because the Logos cannot be imaged.” I answer: a) The Calvinist Position (whether right doctrine or error let Scripture decide) It is improper to make images

This is part 5 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 4) “ A tri-theist, because God the Father cuts off His own Son in the crucifixion (and maybe the Holy Spirit as well?): but Jesus, in all orthodox Trinitarianism, shares the

This is part 4 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 3) “ A Monothelite, in that in conversion, the divine will supplants the human will. And this would go for Christ’s divine will as well.” I answer: a) The Calvinist Position

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let’s see how they’ve been able to rightly divide the word of

This is part 3 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 2) “ Manichaean, in that nature is inherently evil.” (Note, “Manichaean” and “Manichean” are both widely used spellings for this position.) I answer: a) The Calvinist Position (whether right doctrine or

This is part 2 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 1) “ Nestorian, in that the Logos cannot assume a fallen human nature.” I answer: a) The Calvinist Position (whether right doctrine or error let Scripture decide) Christ came in the