Archive for category: Roman Catholicism

   What an amazing sight greeted me this morning as I arrived at my office. Crowds of faithful followers of Rome had gathered in the parking lot in support of the Charitable Dr. Beckwith, calling for my immediate repentance and adoption of charity (i.e., stop pointing out the obvious, stop challenging Rome’s claims, stop focusing upon issues rather than feelings, join

Catholic apologist Gary Michuta was on The Journey Home (8/6/07). Marianne from Pennsylvania called in and described her method of Bible study: she opens the Bible to any page, and then gets layers of meaning from the text. She wanted to know if this was a normal method of Biblical reading and interpretation. Here is the clip: Get the Flash

   Jimmy Akin has joined the “stone James White” movement here. Of course, as is normal with Akin, you will not find a scintilla of interaction with what I have actually said, let alone how one can be “misinformed” by the very words you read on a page as to the content of what is in the book you are reading!

   I provide the full text of Dr. Beckwith’s response: I just couldn’t help myself. Below is my reply to Mr. White’s questions. Each question is preceded by a number. My answer follows the question.    I really don’t think these are serious questions, since they are not the sorts of questions that one asks if one is reading another charitably. That

   On Chris Arnzen’s Iron Sharpens Iron program on Thursday I will be reviewing today’s interview he did with Gerry Matatics on his views as a sedevacantist (one who rejects the current Roman leadership as valid). An e-mail account has been set up to allow folks to e-mail questions to the program at [email protected]. Remember, the program is at 3pm EDT,

   Let’s make it clear. Frank Beckwith claims to have read the Council of Trent prior to January of this year, and, seemingly, he is going to use my pointing to his comments about Trent as his sole means of avoiding the dozen or so issues I have raised since yesterday (in the materials below, such as Canon 13 at Nicea/Canon

   I have often commented on the fact that comments sections in blogs are rarely helpful. In fact, they invite the worst of the Internet to show up to attempt to gain a very brief audience for their viewpoints. And it seems that when it comes to Rome, those who post in defense of that system believe they have no reason

   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