Archive for category: Roman Catholicism

   I have been commenting on the Stand to Reason blog in response to claims being made by Frank Beckwith. You can see the comment thread here. As I noted yesterday, I will be reviewing the STR interview today on the DL. One of the issues I will be discussing early on is the fact that I felt Beckwith, at one

   Recently Dave Armstrong has been, once again, melting down. Our favorite dendrophilic apologist (my thanks to TQuid for that wonderful term, and please note, “dendrophilic apologist” is abbreviated “da,” so, it is doubly fitting) has, of late, become rather free in his insults, racking up an impressive list of ad-hominem commentary, which puts his oft-proclaimed ecumenical kindness in a bit

   Hello, your local “complete mental midget” here, on the road and far from home today, but not completely out of touch, anyway. While traveling I was sent this link to Pat Madrid’s Envoy forums. You will note that the thread begins with the ever-timid Phil Porvaznik doing his best to act as if he can respond to my criticisms of

   The question “will Beckwith’s reversion be used as a Roman Catholic apologetics tool” is being answered.    As I have traveled over the past three months–speaking at assorted venues around the United States–I have had inquiries from many about the deliberations that went into our decision. As I have said already, I am working on a book that will document my

   He was the darling of Catholic Answers back in 1990. He was their leading apologist, their poster-boy for seeing the light of coming home to Rome. I remember well debating Gerry in Denver on the Papacy, and seeing Karl Keating and Jimmy Akin (I think Madrid was there, too, but I am not certain) in attendance the first night of

   As is normal with threads on the CA forums, the one about my “dancing” around issues has devolved into the standard “sola scriptura is irrational” snippets from the regulars, all patting each other on the back and repeating the same lines over and over again. But one thing is for certain. Most of the folks posting in that forum do

   Before I post the comments made by one Paul Hoffer regarding cross-examination in debate (and how I don’t have the Holy Spirit), I wanted to note the irony of the fact that I have found attorneys to be the worst debaters I have ever faced. I assumed, wrongly of course, that attorneys would be trained in logic, in the art

   Phil Porvaznik, a humorous, if less than imposing, Roman Catholic apologist, of sorts (and collector of odd video clips), has continued posting on the thread noted below. He has posted some imaginary discussions, and I thought it would be useful, since he won’t actually risk calling my program to promote his viewpoints, to use his claims to illustrate the circularity

Hmmn, should I fall for the trap? Will I call up Mr. White, only to have him hang up on me like he did crimsoncatholic, and then, once crimsoncatholic couldn’t respond, bash him for saying he was laughing at God’s Word, when it was obviously not the case? Or will I call in to give my specific examples, and then

   My Google Search widget pulled up another Catholic Answers Forum thread that once again illustrates the inherent fear many Catholics have of seriously interacting with “the other side.” Here is the thread. Notice that the originator of the thread, “Colliric,” is afraid to even link to my materials, and, it is painfully obvious, has not read any responses to the

   I was speaking in Hawaii when James Swan sent me a quote from Dave Armstrong’s blog. He was talking about how he was going to attend a Catholic apologetics seminar, but, he wouldn’t actually get to go in the room to listen to the sessions, because he can’t afford to register. He was hoping they’d have a video feed in

   So far, from what has been forwarded to me, this is the only negative comment we have received so far. I post it because it illustrates the irrationality of post-modernism and the confused way in which modern men and women think. We must understand that in our modern culture, which eschews biblical categories of truth and replaces them with non-transcendental,

   I just had to chuckle this afternoon as I noted that just before Mr. Patton posted his reply to me (noted below), Ruth Tucker (whose participation on this blog utterly mystifies me, I must admit) posted a brief article, also in response to the Vatican document cited below, titled, “The Catholic Church is a Cult.” And I’m the “anti-Catholic?”    Now,

   I just saw that C. Michael Patton has replied to my comments on the Dividing Line yesterday. I will go through the response more thoroughly on the DL tomorrow (7pm EDT), but a few items briefly: James said at one point that we were parting ways with historic conservative Protestant Evangelicalism. I disagree. Look at our theology. Go through the

   In light of the DL yesterday, I was directed to this article regarding the cooperation of Luis Palau with Rome in his “crusade” in Omaha, Nebraska. I link to this despite the fact that I’m not listed in the sidebar ( sniff, sniff ). Pat Abendroth, of the (in)famous Abendroth Brothers (rumor has it they were once in a rock

   Don’t believe me. Read it yourself.

   I recently purchased The Scriptural Roots of Catholic Teaching by Chantal Epie (New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2002), subtitled, How the Bible Proves the Truth of the Catholic Faith. Sophia Institute Press says this book will give “solid scriptural proof” for a number of distinctly Catholic beliefs, the first being, “God’s revelation comes through the Bible, Tradition, and the Church’s

   I am currently traveling, but happened this morning in catching up on a few items to see the following overwhelming example of Rome’s powerful biblical argumentation. You will recall that a few days ago I made note of the fact that in essence, Rome’s exhortation to her followers to pray to saints and angels means that the prohibition on contact

   Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong is now arguing Jonathan Edwards believed the saints in heaven see what’s happening on earth. Therefore, Dr. White should consider granting the validity of at least this basic aspect of Armstrong’s argument for intercessory prayer to the saints: “Jonathan Edwards would wholeheartedly agree with me on this general point of awareness of saints in heaven, of

   In my previous article I had begun looking, I thought at first briefly, at some comments made by Armstrong regarding prayer to saints. But what was supposed to be brief has expanded a good bit, and since I thought it would be useful to bring Hahn’s recent work into the discussion, I imagine this will take a while! In the

…or so Dave Armstrong alleges this morning. As an example of his methodology of argumentation (which often includes the, “Oh, look at that issue over there that is completely irrelevant to the point at hand, isn’t it interesting?” tactic), Armstrong’s attempted response to this blog entry begins by re-posting Dan Borvan’s picture from Geneva of the “Reformation Wall” with this

Catholic apologist Gary Michuta has released a new book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger. This is a part two of my examination of his interpretation of Romans 3:2. Part one can be found here.    The verse states, “First of all, were entrusted with the oracles of God.” This verse implies a specific set of authoritative inspired writings treated

   Under the broad topic of Mary and the Saints, Armstrong attempts to defend Rome’s doctrine of prayer to saints. Once again, we find no evidence that he is interested in responding to the strongest objections to his position, but only to the weakest. But despite this, even in responding to the weakest argumentation, the number of circular arguments and simply

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong has been attempting to justify his recent blunder in his new book, The One Minute Apologist. Recall, Dave presented Protestants as holding “…bishops, elders, and deacons are all synonymous terms for the same office.” If this were simply one of his blog entries or web pages, it wouldn’t be that big of deal for him. He

(Once again, by the mouth of two or three witnesses: please see this excellent refutation of Armstrong’s errors on this same point).    I recently pointed out a basic, simplistic error in Dave Armstrong’s new book: he claims Protestants (he makes no distinctions) think elders, bishops, and deacons are all one office. He is, of course, wrong about this. I know

   I could not have said it better, but, it is best when someone else observes, and comments upon, the obvious. Read Armstrong’s post. Not even the mention of a single point of criticism of his position. Not once. Just “Oh, woe is me! I’m a victim!” Truly amazing. Please note, I am not reviewing Armstrong’s book for the sake of

   Dave Armstrong has a new book out (anyone who has visited his website for many months is well aware of this fact). It is titled, The One-Minute Apologist. There isn’t much new here (Armstrong is not an original thinker, he just collates what others say and repeats their arguments, normally in very inflated forms), but the format is interesting. Each

   I began working through the reasons offered by Frank Beckwith for his reversion to Rome contained in a recent National Catholic Register article, found here. Of course, such an article cannot provide an exhaustive accounting, but so far we have seen indications that the foundations of this move were rather hastily constructed, or, more accurately, the actual foundations went back

   Dave Armstong: Papal Stalker. Check it out for yourself.

I’ve been working through Catholic apologist Gary Michuta’s new book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: The Grotto Press, 2007). Michuta’s book has informed us Josephus can’t be trusted when he refers to a twenty-two book Jewish Bible. We also learned Rabbinical Judaisms’ tradition of a cessation of prophecy after the time of Artaxerxes was concocted in the second century

   Beckwith then begins to recount, briefly, his steps back into full communion with Rome, which included David Currie’s book, Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic. The time-frame is also interesting. His reading of “the Early Church Fathers” and the Catholic Catechism began long, long ago…in January. Given I blogged his conversion in early May, which went back to late April, not even