Archive for category: Roman Catholicism

Mr. Armstrong has provided a reading list on his blog. In essence, this means that instead of blaming ignorance for his very shallow misrepresentations of non-Catholic theology and exegesis, we must now assert knowing deception. So far, DA has been unable to provide even the slightest meaningful defense of his own published statements and their refutation. Which is really only

…I was informed today that my appearance on this blog has not gone unnoticed by our friends on the Envoy forum. Don’t worry, I know it’s not about me; it’s about Dr. White, of course. You see, because I happen to agree with Dr. White, and even chose to study for a Master of Theology degree (note that, not a

As we previously identified (link), Augustine had no concept of a continued bodily presence of Christ on Earth after the ascension. A very simple modus tolens logical argument shows that Augustine was not a Roman Catholic, in the sense of holding to the modern Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist. The argument is this: Premise 1: If Augustine were a

Jay Dyer has provided the odd accusation that Dr. White is a Monothelite (link to accusation in a comment box on my blog). Mr. Dyer tries to reason from inferences that Dr. White would hold to the idea that Jesus Christ has only one will. However, as brought to my attention by a commenter named “Alex,” Dr. White has explicitly

“holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these” (2Ti 3:5). The masculine plural participle e;contej has as its referent the “men” of v. 2; hence, the vice list in 2-4 refers to men who “hold” a “form” mo,rfwsij of godliness but they have denied (hvrnhme,noi, perfect tense over against present) the

Dave Armstrong is responding on his blog, but I confess, it seems to be pretty difficult to follow where he’s going. Here’s how today’s retort, which in its title speaks of “ad hominem,” starts. My words are in blue: DA has replied to my first comments on his book . They were…predictable. Armstrong says his book is

Two passages are cited by Armstrong under the subtitle of “Carrying Christ’s Afflictions in our Bodies,” 2 Cor. 4:10 and Col. 1:24. Colossians 1:24 is very commonly cited by RC theologians and apologists in reference to the doctrine of penance, purgatory, and indulgences, all related to the idea that our sufferings can be meritorious (when they meet certain conditions) and

Once again, in citing Phil. 3:10 and Rom. 8:17, Armstrong does not consider it necessary to actually handle the verses, establish context, meaning, anything exegetical. They are simply cited, and then the assumption is made that Protestants have no place in their theology for “suffering.” And his source for this (if you happen to be widely read in meaningful Protestant

I’d like to ask Dave Armstrong to provide a biblically solid, textually grounded, linguistically accurate, contextually sound interpretation of Romans 4:6-8: Romans 4:6-8 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the

Dave Armstrong lists four verses that “confound Protestants” under the subtitle of “The Binding Authority of Tradition, According to St. Paul,” beginning on page 37 of The Catholic Verses. They are: 1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 1 Thessalonians 2:13

I sometimes feel sorry for ancient artists. Their work gets plastered all across the covers of modern books, but they never get a dime for their efforts. It’s a shame. That odd observation aside, I picked up a copy of Dave Armstrong’s The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Sophia Institute Press, 2004, 235 pp.), which sports said

And Dave Armstrong pops up again and throws me into the mix of people who turn off the comments sections of their blogs to hide from refutation. Uh, earth to DA…news flash, buddy…I haven’t graduated to RSS capable blogging. This is a plain ol’ html file, nothing more. Someday I may get a real blog, but for the moment, this

In God’s providence I was on the same shuttle bus that picked up Doug Wilson at the airport today, and as we were riding to the hotel he said, “I’ve only been in this blue state for ten minutes, and I already feel icky.” Yes indeed, I know the feeling. But you can look at it in a positive way:

It seems the Roman Catholics gang-called the Bible Answer Man show when Paul Maier was on regarding Luther. Around the 42 minute mark a fellow who sounds vaguely familiar to me who identified himself as a Roman Catholic, Mike from Covina, calls in with a clearly pre-written question presenting an argument against eternal security. He places it in the context

Dave:  Regarding your suggestion that you and I spend an hour on the DL “chatting” and getting to know each other: I don’t believe that would be a proper investment of an hour of our webcast. While at times we do less than serious things for portions of the show, I don’t think “getting to know your local Roman Catholic

I recently read a blog commentary by a Presbyterian, and the resultant comments, regarding my response to Doug Wilson’s “What is a Christian” blog entry. I’m very glad the thesis is “Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters in Christ?” so that we do not simply dicker over using the term “Christian” in a way that is biblically meaningful or

I wondered when those not involved in the issue would chime in, and I didn’t have long to wait. But in what is probably one of the saddest comments I’ve read in a while we read from Kevin Johnson: Imputation, the merit of Christ’s active obedience, and forensic justification–one wonders why they are so important for Reformed people to adhere

(more…)

Presbyterian scholar and professor at Montreat College Paul Owen continues bearing false witness in his public writings. After writing to Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong that he would indeed be able to worship alongside a Roman Catholic “much more easily than with James White or David King” (Owen has said before he would rather see someone in a Catholic Church

Try to read past the acidic tone (a commonality of rC’s these days); step back, listen, consider, and come to understand the capacity of the modern scholar to turn the most obvious statements on their head. But remember, through it all, I’m just a dumb Baptist, and it is probably my fault, too. 🙂 Prepare to enter the theological spin

The question which is raised in sacerdotalism, in a word, is just whether it is God the Lord who saves us, or it is men, acting in the name and clothed with the powers of God, to whom we are to look for salvation. This is the issue which divides sacerdotalism and evangelical religion. (B.B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation,

Presbyterian Scholar of Today:  In other words, I believe Roman Catholics and Protestants both agree that the sole OBJECT of faith is Christ. Anyone who believes in someone or something OTHER than Christ for justification does not have genuine faith. Faith is a whole-hearted commitment of oneself to, and trust in the person of Christ. The Roman Catholic who trusts

Within a few hours after posting these words from Greg Bahnsen, l0g0s came unglued on his blog. How dare I quote Bahnsen’s own words directly on the subject of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who would prefer “a spirit of detente rather than antithesis”! How dare I post his own voice taking the opposite position of the rC’s, or

I was rummaging through some old—and I do mean OLD—files yesterday looking for a letter, when I ran across some old Penpoints. Penpoint was the monthly update from Dr. Greg Bahnsen of the SCCCS (Southern California Center for Christian Studies). My eyes happened to fall upon the issue from just over a decade ago, June, 1994, which carried the title,

Someone came in channel last night and gave me the URL to a brief article by Jimmy Akin where, finally, after many years, he addresses the error he made in attempting to explain away John 6:37-44 in our debate. I had noted this, yet again, in my blog entries for 5/1 and 5/2/04. Here it is. I quote the most

In the comments section on l0g0s’ blog a number of folks (including Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong) have taken him to task for asserting the citations offered above are “out of context.” l0g0s has been utterly unable to back up his claims outside of saying Bahnsen and I would not have agreed on other subjects, a glowing canard to anyone

Lessons learned this AM:  Respond to one rC, and another will say you are misrepresenting him. Lesson: rC’s are allowed to differ, but you aren’t allowed to criticize. rC’s can go ballistic and lose all balance on rC blogs, without rebuke (at least, public rebuke).  If you say, “This position trumps soteriology with sacramentalism” rC’s will say, “No, you are

Don’t blame me. I didn’t write it.

If you are one of those who thought that the self-glorifying work of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Spirit, in redeeming a people to the praise of His glorious grace through the gospel, was part of the truth of God that He has promised to safe-guard to His people throughout the pilgrimage of the church on earth, you have

I was forwarded a commentary from T.A. McMahon (Dave Hunt’s co-laborer) in which he wrote,  Mary has played a key role in the conversion to Catholicism of some of that Church’s leading apologists such as former Reformed theologian Tim Staples and Scott Hahn, a graduate of the evangelical Gordon-Conwell Seminary and former Presbyterian minister.  Just a correction for brother McMahon: