The Gospel is Worth Defending

I guess Dave Armstrong has gone off about the Rutland debate as well, but since I removed his blog from my RSS feed (he posted a reverse-color picture of me from years ago and I finally decided that life would be so much more enjoyable without having to encounter such material on a daily basis) I haven’t seen it. But

Here’s a response to my recent blog post, Reminding Patrick Madrid of Rome’s Blueprints “I am shocked that someone with the reputation as Swan prints something so idiotic. Its obvious his writing is geared to the sheep of protestantism unwilling to give any coherent thought to any subject. I just can’t believe you people buy it. Its not different than

   You wonder, at times, how it is that those who listen regularly to Roman Catholic apologists do not notice the wide range of differences between them on important matters of theology and practice. Don’t they cringe just a little when they hear the “sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy” silliness knowing that they are using a double standard? We

   Catholic apologists often let us know how crucial it is to have an infallible magisterium and church Tradition in order to interpret the Bible correctly. With so many Catholic apologists now commenting on sacred scripture, I thought it would be interesting to provide their commentary on the Bible. Let’s see how they’ve been able to rightly divide the word of

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:

Mark Shea just provided an excellent example of the dividing line between those who “hear” God’s words and obey, and those who refuse to do so, and insist upon substitutions (sacred tradition, prophets, popes, other Scriptures, etc.). He begins: The basic rule of thumb to understand in Catholic/Protestant conversations is that it is not the case the Catholics rely on

   DVD available here (#520).

The redoubtable Kevin Johnson, in response to the Machen citation below, has now accused me of misquoting both Calvin and Machen. Perhaps Mr. Johnson should look up the meaning of “misquoting” in an English lexicon, just as looking up pseudadelphoi in a Greek lexicon would have assisted him as well? He cannot show where the citation is inaccurate or in