The Abuse of Ignatius of Antioch by Roman Catholic Apologist Steve Ray (Final)

This is part 7 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link). Jay Dyer says: 6) “ A pagan, in that the Father can damn the Son of His love in wrath, splitting the Trinity: something more akin to Zeus.” I answer: a) The Calvinist Position

The constant dilemma of the Roman Catholic apologist is to insert doctrines into the Bible that aren’t there to begin with. Their argumentation of meandering logic seeks to demonstrate: a) The Bible doesn’t contradict the doctrine being inserted; b)There are indirect Bible passages that if interpreted by first granting the validity of the extra-biblical doctrine, actually support the extra biblical

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

Steve Hays had a great insight in responding to Frank Beckwith’s offense at the term “Roman Catholic” (which, ironically, seems odd being posted on a blog with the title “Return to Rome”): I can’t help noticing that the church of Rome only discovered the virtues of courtesy and charity rather late in the day. If, for example, you read the

Opinions regarding: Protoevangelium of James: Aquinas: “apocryphal ravings” (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 9, Reply to Objection 3)(source) Jan Wakelin, Director of Radio for Catholic Answers, in response to the question “How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?”: “We don’t.” (source) -Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome 492—496, lists it among “The remaining writings