This is just too funny. How are those of us who disagree with him supposed to take him seriously? Despite the fact that he continually alienates Roman Catholics by calling them names (Christ-crucifiers, Popish, heretics, Romish, etc.) and continually mocking the ecclesiastical offices which they hold dear, how does he expect to be effective when he cannot even get the name of the current Pope right?

   "What I cannot understand," continued MacArthur, "is the response of some Evangelicals to what matters most about the pope: his beliefs about God and the gospel. ... Influential leaders embraced the deceased pope as a brother in Christ and the Catholic church as just another Christian denomination. ...
   "During the Reformation, countless men and women died rather than deny the biblical truths of salvation. Countless others today are giving their lives as missionaries to people lost in the darkness and guilt of Catholicism."
   MacArthur goes on to write about the "damning error" that is Catholicism and notes that he has released a new 90-minute lecture called "Unmasking the Pope and the Catholic System." He says that "the church I pastor is loaded with people who were saved out of the Catholic church. ... A longtime Grace to You board member and dear friend of mine is a former Catholic. He speaks with great emotion about the bondage he and his wife lived under."

   How many times have we heard these claims before? "The Catholic Church is not really Christian." "Catholics believe you 'earn' your salvation through good works." "Catholicism is based on guilt, not truth." "People are in 'bondage' to Catholicism--and we need to save them."
   Each Sunday 7,000 people attend MacArthur's church. This is what he tells them about an institution that was around for nineteen centuries before he was born and that is now headed by a man who shows not a hint of MacArthur's arrogance.

   It is MacArthur who claims a divine commission: "I do have a mandate from God to compare what others teach to the gospel of the Bible." He says, "'Does the pope teach the gospel?' is a valid question."
   Rosalind Moss left John MacArthur's church because she realized that, yes, the pope really does teach the gospel--and that John MacArthur does not.
   The Grace to You ministry's letterhead has this slogan at the bottom: "The Bible Teaching of John MacArthur." Benedict XVI is more modest in his claims. His letterhead does not have at the bottom "The Bible Teaching of Benedict XVI" because the Pope is not trying to push his own agenda.

Why do you think I have been hammering away at these people as hard as I have? This is the filth that the "Deformation" let loose into the world. So it has been from the 16th Century and so it shall be until the last of these blasphemers is extirpated from the face of the Earth.
Chill... I hope this gives you an appreciation for how far from historic Christianity the prot relgions have strayed and why I am honor bound to oppose them to the bitter end.

In a state of fear and panic James White has begged me not to debate him on justification! He grovels asking that I pick any other topic but not THAT!
My areas of special interest is St. Paul and Justification. I know that area inside out.
It is also the only thing that matters in a cath/prot debate. As Martin Luther stated the heresy of "justification by faith alone" (JBFA)is the doctrine upon which the Deformation stands or falls. If it can be shown that the prot doctrine of JBFA is false, then the whole prot system collapses and Catholicism remains standing triumphant. Purgatory is trivial by comparison and is indeed a derivative topic from Justifcation.
This is a grudge match, James. We debated this topic before and you lost. You have written several books dealing with Justification. Why are you afraid to revisit the topic now? You should be able to do this one in your sleep.
Puragatory is out. Our respective fans what to hear us do justification. We should give them what they want.
He is too cxowardly to face me in open debate on the very doctrine upon which the prot fraud stands or falls. Why? Because he knows I will demolish him. I already have and I would do it again if he were man enough to face me.

Ignorance may be bliss but wilfull [sic] misrepresentation is virtually orgasmic. White does not over document. He cobbles together misleading combinations of citations from popular Catholic religious works and pawns them off as Magisterial statements. He also is incapable of distinguishing the devotional from the doctrinal and what is permissible from what is defined Chruch [sic] teaching. And his presupposition is always that his wown [sic] interpretation and beliefs are normative while those of the Catholic Church are questionable.
   Patrick, believe whatever you want. You have free will. If you hate the Catholic Church and us who are members of it, then you have chosen to do so for your own reasons. But don't come here expecting us to take an ignorant bigot like White seriously. He is too cxowardly [sic] to face me in open debate on the very doctrine upon which the prot fraud stands or falls. Why? Because he knows I will demolish him. I already have and I would do it again if he were man enough to face me.

"Resolved: We are initially justified before God by baptism, our justification is increased by doing good works; and subsequently, should the grace of justification be lost, we are again justified through the sacrament of penance."

I would like to address some of James’ comments on my comments. But, before I do, I would like to thank Pat for allowing James to post from this forum so freely. When I was over on Cross Walk, I posted something from their forum on my website and the administrators threatened me with a lawsuit if I did not remove it. Now, to the main reason for this post.

As I stated on this forum Art got his “outrageous falsehoods” from me. I documented my post-debate discussion with James on this forum and I stand by it. If Art said anything that was incorrect it was because I did not express myself accurately, so I wish James would quit pounding Art on this subject.

It would be nice if Mr. Rutland would provide at least a single citation to substantiate his claim that I do not "explore what Catholic(s) mean by the title." How is including chapters reviewing John Paul II's teaching on the subject, Vatican II's teaching on the subject, and Mark Miravalle's teaching on the subject, not doing that very thing?

Why is Mary called Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix? James attempts to tell us but is [sic] approach is somewhat like the three blind men, one who touched an elephants tail, the other its foot and the last its trunk and then described that elephant as a rope, a tree and a serpent. But "dars a whole lotta effelent bitwixted dem three points sir." Now maybe I was a bit too harsh on James, because there is no way, for example, to speak of Mary’s suffering from the Protestant theology of suffering which in the end amounts to “stuff happens.”

I once asked James if he had ever, even for a moment, considered the possibility that the Catholic Church is right. Understand that in order to have an objective point of view, one has to be open to the possibility that both sides of the arguement [sic] may be valid.
   His answer was predictable. No. He had never for a moment considered the possibility that the Catholic Church was right. He listed three reasons, all of which made no sense because they were not based on objective reasoning but on defending his own criteria for judging what is right (sola scriptura, etc.) So I can honestly say that James has never read any Catholic document objectively, listened to any Catholic speaker objectively, examined Church history objectively, or viewed the motivations of any Catholic objectively. He is utterly biased and all his arguements [sic] are based on his own view of Catholic teachings rather than on Catholicism from the point of view of its own Doctors and Fathers. Add to that the fact that our family had always hated the Catholic Church with a passion, and you have no reason whatsoever to believe anything he has to say about it.

I have read both of the books by James White that you cited. Mary - Another redeemer? In all honesty is not one of James’ better attempts. As you know the book is focused on the movement to make “Co-redemptrix” an official title for Our Lady. While James admits that Catholics insist that they do not worship Mary, he then goes on to maintain that in practice we really do. I think the greatest shortcoming of the book is that he perpetuates all of the old Protestant stereotypes without even exploring what Catholic [sic] mean by the title. Others have covered the meaning of Co-redemptrix on this thread so I will defer to them.

As for The Roman Catholic Controversy, it is a much better book. Although it purports to give an honest evaluation of the Catholic faith, in the end it falls short. Art writes that White's books are, “deceptive and misleading,” an oppinion [sic] which I would tend to agree. James’ books are deceptive because of his use of selective information. As with Mary - Another redeemer?, Controversy does not explain how Catholics view their own doctrines and then give an honest evaluation. James knows Catholicism better than most Catholics do, so when he writes something that is misleading, one has to wonder if it is done on purpose.

In his trashy book insulting Our Lady, White uses the title: Mary: Another Redeemer? He crassly states in this book that the dcotrine [sic] of Mary as as Co-Redemptrix is an attempt to make her into another Redeemer on par with Jesus. This is a lie.