Archive for category: Roman Catholicism

I just received my copy of Catholic Answer’s newest publication, The Essential Catholic Survival Guide authored by “The Staff at Catholic Answers.” I think that basically translates to, “Various articles from This Rock magazine put into a big book.” I do find it interesting that most of CA’s materials are couched in the “rescue/survival” mode, not the “demonstration of the

OK, this is just plain creepy, but then again, the listing of what Frederick had at the castle church at Wittenberg is just as creepy, just not high-tech. There is something so very non-Christian about this kind of thing you wonder how anyone with a scintilla of respect for biblical teaching could possibly find it attractive.

That low rumbling sound you’ve been hearing in the east is the sound of Pope Piux IX spinning in his grave (which, oddly, if the listing I saw at the Vatican is accurate, is not actually at St. Peter’s) as the Roman leadership has continued moving ever farther away from his Syllabus of Errors and headlong into embracing pure inclusivism.

Greetings from Ontario, California. I will be speaking here tomorrow and then getting back to Phoenix Monday and staying there for all of November, DV. Doesn’t mean I’ll ever catch up, but a month away from airports will be a true blessing.     I do not regularly look at Robert Sungenis’ website, but I saw a reference to it in

While I was away in Omaha I noted that Paul Owen had posted what honestly sounds to me like a slightly modified transcription of a Gerry Matatics lecture on the Immaculate Conception. Eventually one begins to get used to Owen’s promotion of any kind of false teaching in the name of scholarship, but when you have refuted these arguments over

Eric Svendsen has begun the process of demonstrating Owen’s errors here and here.

With this installment I conclude my response to the “review” of The Roman Catholic Controversy published in the Christian Apologetics Journal. Catholics, however, use the term “justification” to cover the entire salvific process. But they do distinguish between “initial” and “progressive” justification, the former resembling justification “proper” for evangelicals, while the latter sanctification. I believe the Catholic position to be

This is even more clearly seen when MacKenzie raises the issue of solo scriptura in these words: White states that “the doctrine of sola scriptura is based on the nature of the Scriptures as the Word of God” (62). To demonstrate that this doctrine was held in the church prior to the Reformation, he quotes from Basil of Caesarea (c.

I was informed recently that Ralph MacKenzie, co-author of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences along with Norman Geisler, wrote a book review of The Roman Catholic Controversy in the “Christian Apologetics Journal” published by Geisler’s organization. I found that somewhat odd, given that my book is nearly a decade old now. In any case, I would like to

   Just a quick note as I’m headed to Seattle. Really looking forward to meeting all of those who are coming for the conference and debate.    I notice a few folks out there who are extremely excited and happy that when I quickly put together a response to Karl Keating on his ridiculous attack upon John MacArthur that twice I referred

For quite some time I have received Karl Keating’s e-letter. I guess it is easier than a blog (it is only once a week or so). Sometimes there are a few things that mildly interesting. He still takes shots at Bart Brewer every once in a while, though why he would do so is difficult to understand. In any case,

One of my favorite sound clips in our chat channel is from the popular TV show, “Frasier.” In his own inimitable fashion, Dr. Crane asks, “Tell me…what color is the sky in your world?” Such a quip indicates that the person to whom you are addressing those words seems to live…elsewhere, disconnected from reality, in a fantasy world.     I

Well, this one will go down in the archives, that’s for sure. I know many of my readers have turned the Sippo materials “off” over time, mainly because his bombastic, insulting diatribes are simply not enjoyable to read. But if you have, turn the switch back on for just a moment, long enough to digest just a tiny little sampling

Ignorance may be bliss but wilfull misrepresentation is virtually orgasmic. White does not over document. He cobbles together misleading combinations of citations from popular Catholic religious works and pawns them off as Magisterial statements. He also is incapable of distinguishing the devotional from the doctrinal and what is permissible from what is defined Chruch teaching. And his presupposition

Bill Rutland has provided a “response” that is again instructive to examine, though briefly, as I have limited time before heading back to Phoenix in a matter of hours. I would like to address some of James’ comments on my comments. But, before I do, I would like to thank Pat for allowing James to post from this forum so

In the midst of the “bash White’s books without providing a single example that can stand examination” spate over at Envoy, Patty Patrick Bonds decided to chime in, to use her own words. She begins with a story she has told before–but without any meaningful context: I once asked James if he had ever, even for a moment, considered the

Yesterday we noted further examples of the means by which Roman Catholic apologists in the tradition of Art Sippo engage in simply dishonest and inaccurate argumentation so as to maintain their audiences. Unlike those folks, we documented our assertions fully. Today I move on to Bill Rutland’s comments in the same thread. Mr. Rutland was my opponent only a few

Apologetics is dangerous. As the Apostle said, “knowledge makes arrogant” (1 Cor. 8:1). A love of God, His truth, and intimate possession of the attitude of the Apostle, who “endured all things for the sake of the elect” (2 Tim. 2:10), is necessary for doing God-honoring apologetic activity.     Over the years as I have interacted with apologists for many

I stopped being surprised a long time ago at the non-responses offered by Roman Catholic apologists to substantive and especially exegetically-based criticisms of their positions. Sippo’s website, for example, links to the 15-second long context-less video snippet of an interchange between myself and Gerry Matatics on sola scriptura (the same clip I discussed a few weeks ago on the blog,

We complete our review and refutation of Art Sippo’s comments on Romans 9 with the final portion of the chapter he addressed on the Catholic Legate website. It is in this section that Dr. Sippo attempted to present information on the original language of the text, and in the process, demonstrated that it is best not to do that if

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power overthe clay, from the same lump to make

Sippo continues in reference to Romans 9:14-16, This is locus classicus for the doctrine that there is no strict merit before God. God is not obligated to reward the creature for morally upright works done by the natural man apart from God or His covenants. This does not exclude the possibility of condign merit {due to the obedience of faith

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

I continue with my response to Art Sippo regarding Romans 9. Sippo then cited two very lengthy passages of Scripture, Ezekiel 33:8-20, and the entirety of Romans 2. Unfortunately, he offered not a word of exegesis, and not the slightest interaction with the texts themselves, outside of a grand and sweeping conclusion, In both of these excerpts, the Bible teaches

I continue with my response to Art Sippo regarding Romans 9. Sippo wrote, This is based on a philosophy of Voluntarism stemming form Ockham’s theory ‘absolute divine power.’ According to Voluntarism, if God is bound to act by a moral standard, that standard sits in judgement on Him and He is not truly sovereign. ‘Good and evil’ in this system

Art Sippo, a Catholic layman and medical doctor, is well known for his virulent attacks upon “prots” and defenders of the “Deformation,” etc. He has posted an attempt to interpret and explain Paul’s presentation concerning the freedom of God in Romans 9, and though Dr. Sippo will not debate these issues live in public (he seemingly will only debate a

I had noted that Mr. Latar had begun replying as soon as I posted my review of his position against sola scriptura and that this would result in a rejoinder from me. Upon reading his attempt, I see no reason to do so. There is no meaningful exegetical position put forward, no refutation of what I have said, with which

In our first installment we came to the point in Mr. Latar’s presentation where he made the rather amazing claim that 2 Thes. 2:15 presents us with two infallible rules of faith, one written, and one oral, and that this disproves sola scriptura. As I have pointed out, Rome does not tell us a single word Paul ever said to

I had written: And I cannot help but contrast such a statement with Jesus’ own words, which again so strongly illustrate the contrast between the anthropocentric mind-set of Roman Catholicism (God wants to save, tries to save, but fails to save so often because He is dependent upon the cooperation of man’s will–and yes, I know, that’s Arminianism as well)

What is the best way to hide the fact that you have been guilty of engaging in consistent ad hominem argumentation and are not, in fact, capable of a meaningful defense of your position? Of course! Accuse the other guy of everything you have done! If he says someone who is in error is “confused,” don’t look at that as

Part of the reason I even responded to the assertions of Patty Bonds last evening was because I knew, in light of the current spate of “Hate White” posts following the Great Debate X, one of those, probably on Envoy, who are so highly impressed with themselves, would seek to jump all over it. That would give me the opportunity