Apologetics Archives - Page 10 of 10

Dr.* James White, apologist for the Romanism of Steve Green.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • April 5, 2013 • Apologetics; Humor

What surprised me most was the pains Dr.* White took to praise a Steve Green song from several decades back, entitled “Find Us Faithful.” He even took the trouble to put up a separate blog post embedded with two—two!—YouTube videos of the song. What’s surprising about this is that I would have suspected Mr. Green’s song to have raised the ire of Dr.* White far more than “Jesus Friend of Sinners.” What do I mean? Well, take a listen to the song, and you’ll discover that “Find Us Faithful” is not much better than a sell-out to Romanism.

Mr. Maricle’s ontological error about Mary.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • February 14, 2013 • Apologetics; Exegesis; Marian Dogmas

Mr. Rho may choose to repeat his clichés and sophomoric talking points like vain repetitions that magically make Reformed theology true without the burden or logic or evidence or proof. However many times he chants “Mary is dead” over the beads in his hand, it does not change Jesus’s words in Mark 12:18 – 27. However many times he insists on mocking prayers to Mary, it does not change the fact that she is alive in heaven. The supernatural is a different category of being than the natural. Communication does not take place the same way.

Geneva’s defenders show true colors.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • February 11, 2013 • Anti Catholicism; Apologetics

It started out badly enough over at Beggars All. On that estimable resource of anti-Catholic snipe, Mr. Alan “Rhology” Maricle, who fools no one by his alias, wrote a post so shockingly dumb that real snipes hid their bills. Pro-life activity at an abortion mill was now to be used, not to defend the sanctity of life, but instead to bash unoffending Catholics for their “blasphemous” prayers. In response, I wrote a strongly-worded but still charitable post, in which I said, among other things, that Mr. Rho may have objected any other time.

Anti-Catholic spectacle “Rhology” strains at the Ave and swallows abortion.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • February 7, 2013 • Anti Catholicism; Apologetics

Maybe Catholics are a curiosity in Norman, Oklahoma. But I confess I am surprised by Rhology’s seeming innocence whether they were praying the Rosary. The man is actively involved in apologetics contra the Catholic Church, so his being unable to positively identify the Rosary seems strange. It’s easily identified by the quotations from Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:42 – 43. Usually, Catholics are holding those funny little beads when they say it, making it the more recognizable. But Rhology is all innocent about such things.

Mr. John Bugay’s false understanding of infallibility.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • February 6, 2013 • Apologetics; Papal Infallibility

In a recent post, the polemical rogue Mr. John Bugay begins with a weird question. “Over at Old Life,” he says, “a commentater [sic] asked: ‘At what point are we free to conclude that a corrupt hierarchy points to a false church?’ ”Mr. Bugay finds the question very compelling, but I find it dumb beyond the power of words. (Don’t ever be told that there is no such thing as a dumb question. In fact, the world is infested with them, like gnats or tweets.) At what point are we free to conclude that a corrupt leadership points to a false country? Or that a bunch of inane posts points to a false blog?

The apostles are also θεόπνευστος, Dr.* White.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • January 31, 2013 • Apologetics; Exegesis

A reader with the improbable name of “Rooney” dares to dispute my claim that the Greek word theopneustos applies as much to John 20:21 – 23. My point, from an earlier comment in the same thread, was that Dr.* James White (Th.D., D.Min., etc., etc.) is wrong to say that the Scriptures alone are “God-breathed.” He may say it until he runs out of breath — for that seems to be his goal — but he will still be wrong. As evidence, I quoted this singular passage from John, wherein Christ appears to the disciples after the Resurrection and breathes on them.

White Man’s Burden redux.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • January 23, 2013 • Apologetics; Church Fathers; sola scriptura

Dr.* White accuses me of asking him to “prove a universal negative.” The accusation is the same as the one he tried to use in his 1993 debate with Patrick Madrid on sola scriptura. Dr.* White complained that, in order for him to prove how unique is the Bible, he would have to scour the entire universe in search of something exactly like it and come up empty. (I wasn’t aware sola scriptura claims only that the Bible is “unique.”) Mr. Madrid denied that Dr.* White needed to go that far.

To Susan Vader.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • January 18, 2013 • Apologetics

When Christ said to you, “Come, leave your nets, follow me,” you did something few have courage to do. You left your nets. You followed the Lord. There is no greater joy. A great convert, formerly a Pentecostal minister, recalled the moments when people would ask him why he became Catholic, and his answer always was: “I had to. How do you tell God no? How do you look in the face of a loving Savior, who loved me so much He died that I might be with him — how do you look at Him and say no?” You said yes.

Questions for a Reformed apologist.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • January 15, 2013 • Apologetics; sola scriptura

Consider, dear reader, if you will, these words: “The novelty of biblical revelation consists in the fact that God becomes known to us through the dialogue which he desires to have with us.” Does the author believe in sola scriptura? What do you think? For, after all, he describes the Bible as “novel.” That is to say, it is unique; it is different than anything else. More than that, he describes the Bible as the means by which “God becomes known to us.” He refers to it as God’s “dialogue” with us. He points to no other source of knowledge or dialogue with God.

Baptism now saves you; remember your baptism.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • January 14, 2013 • Apologetics; Exegesis; Liturgical Year; Sacraments

God has a remarkable proclivity for accomplishing his work through the material things of this earth – but foremost among them, possibly, is water. At the very beginning of creation, God is said to be “moving over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:2). Before God has created anything specific or concrete, water exists. He creates the “heavens and the earth,” but as yet they are “without form and void.” They are just the raw materials, created ex nihilo. But there is water; when God says, “let there be light,” his spirit is upon the waters.

Eisegesis Master Mr. John Bugay tries to force sola scriptura upon unwilling texts.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • January 12, 2013 • Apologetics; sola scriptura

The best argument that Catholic apologists have against sola scriptura is that it is self-refuting. If the Bible alone contains all that is required for faith and practice, and sola scriptura is required for faith and practice, then why is sola scriptura not to be found there? Search as long as you may please, you will not find it. Protestants know that they have a difficulty here. They know that, in order to defend sola scriptura, they must do so from the only source of doctrine to which they point. They must tell us which verse teaches sola scriptura. (Just one verse will do.)

Did Adam & Eve practice sola scriptura?

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • January 9, 2013 • Apologetics; sola scriptura

Unusual as the question may sound, no less a personage than the polemical rogue John Bugay makes that wery claim here. The title of this blog article (for the man does not quit but grows more wild) is “The First Adam, Sola Scriptura, and His Commission as King, Priest, and Protestant.” Yes, dear reader, it would seem that Adam was a Protestant. Now, what Mr. Bugay seems to be up to this time is to wring wet and curious claims out of a sponge of a book by G.K. Beale called A New Testament Biblical Theology, in a passage where Beale is discussing the first covenant.

Mr. John Bugay, defending the perspicuity of Scripture, cries: “God is not some kind of loon!”

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • January 3, 2013 • Apologetics; sola scriptura

Over on Pseudologue today, anti-Catholic polemicist Mr. John Bugay informs us, with his customary mad zeal, that “God is not some kind of loon.” Right. I’m pleased to report we can agree with him on that. For who among us says God is? Is Mr. Bugay swatting the air against imaginary flies again? Does he suffer floaters? These are real questions, I am afraid. But Mr. Bugay, as is his wont, insists on starting with self-evident premises and then getting lost down tangled paths of non sequitur.