Yesterday, Curtis Jeremiah Boddy (someone who has “tried” to interact with, and critique, my work on Sola Scriptura [Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura] and one who has given LDS apologists many hours of belly aches with his inane “arguments”) debated Robert Smedley, a Catholic apologist. The topic was on whether Transubstantiation was biblical.
As one who has written a lot on this topic, including a book-length interaction with Catholic dogmas on the Eucharist, I decided to watch this “live.” I say this as a critic of Catholic
theology: The Catholic apologist won, and Boddy (as I expected he would)
embarrassed himself:
Curtis J Boddy Vs Robert Smedley: Is the Catholic Understanding of Transubstantiation Biblical?
During the audience Q&A, I asked two questions, one on 1 John 2:1-2 and Jesus being a present ιλασμος/propitiation for the then-future sins of believers and also 1 Cor 9:24-27 (esp. v. 27 where Paul says he himself could become αδοκιμος/reprobate). For a full discussion of these texts (texts Boddy struggled with), see:
Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30 and
Craig Blomberg on 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 and the "Perseverance of the Saints"
(cf. Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness and An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology)
I know that many will be attracted to Catholic theology due to Boddy proving himself to be a joke of an apologist (he should be ashamed of himself for making [1] a fool of himself in such a public venue and [2] by doing so, give people who may not know better, the impression Rome's arguments are convincing). However, if you are either a Catholic or becoming attracted to Catholicism, please note that there are good arguments against the Catholic dogmas of the Mass. In fact, I will happily send anyone interested in a free PDF of my book on the topic:
