Working on The Great Debate III – 1998

   It seems Dr. Bauman has concluded his participation in the thread noted earlier. But his means of doing so has surely left me bewildered. Evidently, charity in accepting a revert’s confession of faith is a good thing, but it seems to leave no charity left for anyone who would dare to ask you biblical and logical questions concerning your position.

   I’ll admit, I’m dumbfounded. I have often said that Rome’s primary American apologists live in a land, far far away from reality. They simply do not care what their most serious critics provide in the way of rebuttal. Once they have produced an argument, they will repeat it, no matter how often it is refuted, shredded, and otherwise turned into

Angel must have listened to the Madrid debate on the veneration of saints and images, because I well remember making with my words the point he here makes with his art. And, as usual, it is more memorable when Angel does it:

This just appeared on the Envoy forums: Hi Gang, I am getting a bit tired of James’ hysterics. If he wants to keep going postal about our debate, well let him. I have another debate in November that I must prepare for. When my kids were young and we put them to sleep they would cry in protest. We found

I’ve been reading Van Til’s An Introduction To Systematic Theology. Van Til notes systematic theology seeks to offer an ordered presentation of what the Bible teaches about God. He says “the study of systematic theology will help men to preach theologically. It will help to make men proclaim the whole counsel of God. Many ministers never touch the greater part

Recently, Catholic apologist Gary Michuta began posting on the Catholic Answers forum. In his posts, he commented on his apocrypha debate versus Dr. White, presenting his novel way of reconciling the canon discrepancy between Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. Michuta also mentioned the work of William Webster, prompting these responses from Webster:    Bill Webster Responds to Gary Michuta Part I    Bill