How Does the Law Apply to New Testament Believers? – Part 2

   Roman Catholics believe Peter established the church at Rome, served as its first pope, and was eventually martyred there. This faith claim is not based on Biblical evidence. It is elusive “tradition” which posits Peter (and Paul) established the Roman Church in the early 40’s. Peter is said to have remained in Rome for twenty-five years, preaching the Gospel, and

   I thought I’d post a few shots from the video of the debate. Here is a side-by-side shot of the cross-examination period. And here is a humorous point in Rutland’s closing where he began by talking about how I am the premiere Catholic apologist today…and I was like, “Uh, wha?” And people started to snicker, and he stopped and looked

…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

We shall break off at this point, for the chief goal of our considerations has been attained. We have seen that the New Testament as a whole strikingly demonstrates the primacy of Peter; we have seen that the formative development of tradition and of the Church supposed the continuation of Peter’s authority in Rome as an intrinsic condition. The Roman

   James Swan informed me that an old thread on the CA Forums got some life today. Someone asked about the video below, which is just the brief closing statement from the Papacy debate in 1998. Phil Porvaznik immediately jumped in with his pre-fab list of refutations—the same ones he would never dare use in public against me, because he knows