Some Roman Catholic Issues: Transubstantiation/Apocrypha

   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 theologyradio@gmail.com. Remember, the program is at 3pm EDT,

A certain set of folks will surely chalk this up to my innate stupidity, blindness, and general lack of in-depth knowledge of the sewing methods of French nuns in the northwestern corner of France in the year 1219, but I just read Peter Leithart’s comments on the death of John Paul II, and I am once again launched off into

Don’t forget to be with us live this afternoon at 3pm PST, 6pm EST, for the special 90-minute edition of the Dividing Line, featuring a live debate with Tim Staples of Catholic Answers on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and the doctrine of Purgatory. The format is as follows: 15 minute opening statements (Tim gets to go first) 8 minutes rebuttals 5

Thoughts Prompted by the Reprise of the Topic of the Atonement in Debate Against Robert Sungenis   (updated on 5/31/03)

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

…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