Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Peter Dimond and skewed theology


The outrageous claims that Peter Dimond has recently made against me in an article that he posted on his site in an attempt to smear me has been answered in complete and full detail below. Simply RIGHT CLICK and save! This article is important on many levels. It deals with some simple errors that Peter Dimond made DURING and AFTER our debate. It shows you just how dangerous it is to have a skewed form of theology. For the past few years that I have been active in apologetics, I have always said that it is important to have a firm grasp and education in theological matters. I hold that today as well. Having a strong grasp of Catholic theology is very important. I think our recent debate has shown that one of us is entrenched in the early teachings of the Church and another one of us thinks that the early Church was wrong on a vital issue such as the Eucharistic words of institution.

Click here to download the PDF response to Peter Dimond!

On my blog you can also find a link to the NOVUS ORDO MISSAE debate that I had against Peter Dimond not long back. We should pray for Mr. Dimond and his ministry-that they come to accept Christ and the Church he has left us.

GOD BLESS!

18 comments:

  1. AMAZING RESPONSE THANK U!

    ReplyDelete
  2. What an amazing diatribe of garbage. Once again proving who clearly is the child (Albrecht) and who speaks the cahtolic FAITH (MHFM).........what an adolescent. Just like the debate, he points to nothing substantial and supports it with thin air!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Looks good William =)

    ReplyDelete
  4. "What an amazing diatribe of garbage. Once again proving who clearly is the child (Albrecht) and who speaks the cahtolic FAITH (MHFM).........what an adolescent. Just like the debate, he points to nothing substantial and supports it with thin air!!!"

    If it's a diatribe of garbage, I highly doubt Peter Dimond would be throwing a fit and demanding 8 outrageous conditions to debate me again. Such behavior is outrageous. If you think my arguments were invalid, then I challenge you to refute them. Give it your best shot

    ReplyDelete
  5. What has once been refuted, reamins refuted.....

    ReplyDelete
  6. i agree peter dimond is such a scaredy cat he wouldnt dare debate u again so he challenges 15 yr old boys and other sto debate. talk about a coward

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I'm not preaching Sola Scriptura, I'm reading the Bible"

    Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is obvious that this is what Sola Scriptura is--in one of it's variant forms. Nevertheless, a reading of the Scriptures--which are tradition based--in a concise manner that then correlates them to the documents from Trent is hardly that which adds the addendum SOLA to the BIBLOS in and of itself. Learn your theology.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Council of Trent declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.

    This is all fine by you however as you merely brush all of Trent's teaching aside in favor of your own heretical intrepretation. You truly show what you stand for, and it has NOTHING to do with the Catholic Chruch!

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The problem with your assertion is that I am relying solely on the Scriptures. In reality, I am relying on verses that Trent FORMALLY DEFINED. If these verses show an ACTUAL Eucharistic passage and actual references to a TRUE anamnesis, then the Sedevacantist is in a bind. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that Trent was wrong and or lying here and that these accounts which were FORMALLY defined are indeed INCORRECT institution accounts. Unfortunately for you, the Fathers and the tradition of the Church stand squarely against you. Sedevacantism is an abandonment of all logic. Give it your best shot.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "the Scriptures were not materially sufficient."

    Perhaps a course in logic is necessary for you. Never have I asserted that the Scriptures were materially sufficient in this debate. Never did I even RELY solely on the text either! If your best retort is that Sola Scriptura is untenable, then your position is really in trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Looks like you can't be the clown you're accustomed to being anymore. Get a life and stop trolling blogs. Instead of parroting other people, educate yourself in Theological matters.

    ReplyDelete