Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Off to Seattle
08/25/2005 - James WhiteJust a quick note as I'm headed to Seattle. Really looking forward to meeting all of those who are coming for the conference and debate.
I notice a few folks out there who are extremely excited and happy that when I quickly put together a response to Karl Keating on his ridiculous attack upon John MacArthur that twice I referred to Pope Boniface instead of Pope Benedict. Ignoring the substance of what I wrote and focusing solely upon mixing two artificial names (shall we just call him Joseph Ratzinger and stop the pretension of the Papacy and its naming policy?), some have jumped on this as if it has some kind of meaning. One Anglican wrote,
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?
One will note that 1) this writer ignores the discussions of the election of Ratzinger that took place at the time and the proper designation provided; 2) he ignores the entire substance of the post itself, 3) he confuses biblical refutation and disagreement with mocking, and finally, 4) I would like to challenge this would-be critic to provide me with a single example of my use of the phrase "Christ-crucifiers" on this blog or in my published writings. I wonder, which is more important: switching fake names (Boniface is a well known Papal name as well) in a hurry or outright lying about someone else, like this Anglican did? Interesting standards he has.
John MacArthur, Pope Benedict, and Karl Keating
08/23/2005 - James WhiteFor quite some time I have received Karl Keating's e-letter. I guess it is easier than a blog (it is only once a week or so). Sometimes there are a few things that mildly interesting. He still takes shots at Bart Brewer every once in a while, though why he would do so is difficult to understand. In any case, today Keating decided to blow a gasket in John MacArthur's direction. Now, given that Mr. Keating can not hold a candle to Dr. MacArthur's ministry and writings, I found his attack petty and cheap, especially since it played the "convert card" as well. Evidently one of Keating's staff people was once a member of John's church. Of course, hundreds, if not thousands, of those who have come to know Christ through Grace to You and Grace Community Church are former Roman Catholics, so one has to wonder at the relevance of Keating's argument at that point. Be that as it may, MacArthur made a number of the same comments about John Paul II's death that I did at the time, and Keating evidently did not like what he had to say. He cites from MacArthur,
"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."
Obviously, MacArthur is expressing the views common to Bible-believing evangelicals. Nothing new or exciting here. Will we get a closely reasoned, strongly exegetical response from Karl Keating? Well, you already know the answer to that.
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.
Keating is preaching to the choir. Why not refute the allegations in a meaningful fashion? Why not explain how such doctrines as purgatory and indulgences and the idea of mortal sin destroying the grace of justification do not, in fact, result in fear, uncertainty, and the epidemic Marian idolatry that we see all around the globe? And though we have often caught Keating in historical errors (which he continues to repeat without even noting the refuation of his claims, here is an example), he continues to present the myth that Rome is two millennia old. Tell us, Karl--can you name a single member of the Council of Nicea who believed and professed what you believe about the Papacy, Mary, purgatory, indulgences, transubstantiation, etc.? If not, how can you throw out these easy, yet false, statements?
Now, I am only an acquaintance of John MacArthur. We've spoken a few times and had lunch. I do not know him the way many others do, but I do know this: John MacArthur would recoil in horror if someone bowed to him and tried to kiss his ring. He would rightly rebuke anyone who addressed him in terms proper only for deity (such as "Holy Father" or "Vicar of Christ"). He does not enter the pulpit in flowing velvet clothes and gold-fringed robes. He is a humble minister of the Word of God, not the traditions of men. For someone to defend the grandiose, unbiblical traditions and claims of the Papacy in Rome in contrast to a warm-hearted, shepherding, exegetically-minded minister of the gospel is the height of absurdity. Perhaps Keating needs to visit Grace Community and compare its simplicity and focus upon the ministry of preaching with the gold-encrusted marble hallways of St. Peter's. To miss that contrast is to say much about one's own blindness to one's traditions. But Keating has only begun:
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.
Please! Can you imagine trying to contrast the pretentious claims of Rome's papacy--the fawning of crowds over a man who holds an unbiblical office and accepts the most incredibly non-Christian adoration and man-worship--with "The Bible Teaching of John MacArthur"---it is simply beyond belief! Benedict XVI is called "Pontifex Maximus" and "Vicar of Christ" and that is somehow more humble than "The Bible Teaching of John MacArthur"? Hello? Is anyone else as utterly amazed at such a statement as I?
Keating says MacArthur is not preaching the gospel. MacArthur says Boniface (and by extension, Keating) is not. So who do you think can prove their point exegetically, from the Word of God? Read Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism and compare and contrast it with John's work. There is no comparison. Yugo vs. Jaguar. Hawks vs. Spurs. Royals vs. Cardinals. Internet Monk vs. Pyromaniac. No contest.
08/11/2005 - James WhiteOne of my favorite sound clips in our chat channel is from the popular TV show, "Frasier." In his own inimitable fashion, Dr. Crane asks, "Tell me...what color is the sky in your world?" Such a quip indicates that the person to whom you are addressing those words seems to live...elsewhere, disconnected from reality, in a fantasy world.
I would like to ask Art Sippo, "What color is the sky in your world?" As I fully expected, he has begun the process of spinning his rejection of my challenge to debate justification in his own home town. And so, as I told him I would, I am providing the entirety of the few days of correspondence between us. You will get to see the split-personality that appeared in that correspondence: the man who froths at the mouth at "prots," who only two weeks ago in response to a discussion of Calvinism had literally screamed:
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.
...all of a sudden becomes sweetness and light, the very model of civility---without, of course, even acknowledging his own words elsewhere. Only the brave need bother, but it was necessary to document the facts to silence the cavils of Dr. Sippo. Here's the file.
Art Sippo Declines Debate Challenge: I Am Not Nice Enough
08/09/2005 - James WhiteWell, this one will go down in the archives, that's for sure. I know many of my readers have turned the Sippo materials "off" over time, mainly because his bombastic, insulting diatribes are simply not enjoyable to read. But if you have, turn the switch back on for just a moment, long enough to digest just a tiny little sampling of a much larger body of documentation of the kind of bluster and rhetoric that flows daily from the keyboard of the main apologist of catholic-legate.com, as collected on the fly by one of the brave souls who dares to press onward in speaking the truth in the midst of the Envoy web forums:
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!Of course, this tiny sampling could be increased a hundred fold, not only from going to Envoy but from going to Sippo's website. Fourteen years of this kind of behavior. So, finally, I challenged Sippo to debate me on the topic he himself demands we debate. I arranged a local venue, right there where he lives. He doesn't even have to take a day off of work, doesn't have to pack a bag. We even do the video taping, and provide him, free of charge, an unedited master to distribute far and wide! After all these years of calling me a coward, a fraud, referring to me as "Pseudopodeo" (an alteration of one of my old AOL screen names), lying about me without even bothering to check facts, I finally get fed up and see a chance to combine an already scheduled event (lecture series on New Perspectivism in the St. Louis area) with the debate Sippo has repeatedly said I am afraid to engage in.
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.
So, what's the result? Well, it's really quite simple: Art Sippo says I'm not civil enough. Yes, the man who calls Calvinism "demonic" and refers regularly to the "deformation" (Reformation) and "prots" and whose favorite words are "coward" and "fraud" and the like, does not believe I have been civil enough to him to accept the challenge to debate. You see, as soon as Dr. Sippo began writing to me, he was all sweetness and light. I immediately pointed out the contrast and contradiction between his public behavior and his private e-mails. He did not like this. I contrasted his current statements with his past statements, and he did not like this. What was more, he asked for my personal cell phone number, and I refused to give it to him. I was quite honest: I don't trust him with it. But more, I had no intention of arranging any debate without doing it all, completely, in writing. Sippo lied about the pre-debate discussions with Bill Rutland only two months ago: why on earth should we arrange this debate any differently than we have all the others? I gave him the ministry's number and who he should talk to (Rich Pierce, the man who arranges these things anyway). Sippo demanded my number or there would be no debate.
And so, the simple fact of the matter is, Art Sippo has no intention of ever exposing himself to a public debate on any topic at all against me. He has declined every challenge to public debate, and written debate. His bluster and slander has been demonstrated to be constructed out of nothing but wet paper towels, a facade with no substance, loud fury backed by match sticks. If Sippo seeks in any forum whatsoever to misrepresent this situation, I will post, en toto, every bit of the correspondence that has been written over the past two days. Those with the slightest bit of familiarity with Sippo's long history of anti-Protestant harangues will be able to see the truth of the situation instantly.
And with the close of this saga, I turn my attention, Lord willing, finally and solely, to John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. Seattle and Alaska are right around the corner....
OK, Sippo, Let's Debate
08/08/2005 - James White
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.
Let's ponder another example of Art Sippo's world. If my works are filled with "misleading combinations of citations from popular Catholic religious works" that I then pawn off as "Magisterial statements" it would be real easy to prove this, yes? Will Sippo do so? Of course not! He can't. And if someone had the guts to challenge him to provide a single example, he'd simply bluster about their being hate filled prots and move on from there.
Now, let's remember the truth here: Sippo will not debate me on the Papacy. Sippo will not debate me on purgatory. Sippo will not debate me on the Mass. Sippo will not debate me on the Marian dogmas. Sippo will not debate me on anything but one topic: he wants to reprise his outrageous behavior in Toledo Ohio on the subject of justification. He will not debate in writing, either. He is dodging challenge after challenge, but, in his little kingdom, his servants are not informed of this reality.
So, I confess, I have tired of this man's constant outrageous behavior and the utter hypocrisy of his compatriots in allowing him a platform for it. So, since Art Sippo thinks the New Perspective on Paul is his "ace," and suffers under the delusion that NPism aids him in his position, how about this: I am already scheduled to present a seminar on New Perspectivism in St. Louis (Sippo lives in the area) the first weekend in December. I have already contacted the church where I will be speaking and they are willing to assist in this endeavor. I challenge Art Sippo, M.D., to debate the following proposition at the Covenant of Grace Church in St. Charles on December 1:
"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."This is the very position of Roman theology, enshrined in her dogmatic teachings. So, Dr. Sippo, I'm coming to your area, to your own back yard. You don't have to travel. You don't have to pack a single bag. You will not debate me on every single one of the topics your compatriots have been willing to tackle: here is your one subject, justification, and I will even allow you the positive position and the first word. How about it, Dr. Sippo? I await your response.
Quick Rejoinder to Bill Rutland
08/08/2005 - James WhiteBill Rutland has provided a "response" that is again instructive to examine, though briefly, as I have limited time before heading back to Phoenix in a matter of hours.
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.
It is sorta hard to avoid the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, behind that is the idea that "Hey, maybe we should have the freedom to say anything we want in this forum and no one should have the right to expose what we say, even when it involves blatant, documentable lies about others, in any other way." Sorta sounds like that is the idea, but let's hope not.
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.
I simply refer the reader to the unanswered documentation of the lies posted by Sippo (he has never retracted them) and the sad collusion of Rutland with his personal attacks here. I had written:
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.”
Once again--how is this a response? I cite Vatican II; I cite John Paul II; I cite previous papal encyclicals; I cite Miravalle. Where did I misrepresent them? Where did I misunderstand them? When I criticize the work of others, I attempt to show them sufficient respect to at least provide documentation before providing conclusions. Rutland does not seem up to the task. If this is the level of interaction he is putting into his book, well, that does not bode well at all. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
Mrs. Bonds on Bias and Misrepresentation
08/08/2005 - James WhiteIn the midst of the "bash White's books without providing a single example that can stand examination" spate over at Envoy, Patty Patrick Bonds decided to chime in, to use her own words. She begins with a story she has told before--but without any meaningful context:
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.
If we consider the logic behind these statements, we see that one must be able to say "The faith once for all delivered to the saints may well be wrong, and I can lay it aside and assume a neutral position, so as to evaluate another religion's claims objectively." There are a number of problems with the thesis. First, it assumes that the Christian faith is merely an object of epistemological data that you can set aside so as to "objectively" evaluate counter-claims. But this is a very shallow, very unbiblical view of the faith. A person who is serious about the Christian faith realizes that to "have the mind of Christ" and to "take every thought captive" implies deep and abiding epistemological commitments that determine how we analyze any competing claim. One would have to believe one's own faith is inconsistent with the biblical record before one could abandon that teaching and consider a competing truth claim, and as I explained to Mrs. Bonds long ago (and as we continue documenting to this day on this web log), I have never had anyone in the Roman communion, or any other, offer reason for believing so. To put this in sharper focus, to follow Mrs. Bonds' argument would mean that to evaluate the claims of the Heaven's Gate Cult, I would have to be willing to evaluate their claims "objectively," admitting that "they may well be right---maybe the mother ship IS hiding behind that comet!" No, I do not have to abandon my commitment to the Lordship of Christ to truthfully examine, with accuracy and fairness, the claims of any religious group, including Roman Catholicism.
So when I informed Mrs. Bonds that I had never considered the possibility that Rome was true, I explained why: Rome has failed, miserably, to demonstrate that her dogmas are ancient, or biblical, or compelling, or even logically coherent; as soon as I started studying Roman Catholicism, I encountered her violation of sound principles regarding the ultimate supremacy of Scripture, her circular arguments for her various views of "tradition," etc. And I surely saw that the Roman system's gospel did not begin to answer to the matter of man's sin and his need for full and perfect redemption in another. So I truly wonder, does Mrs. Bonds follow her own advice? Has she read the Qur'an objectively, honestly separating herself from any pre-commitments so as to weigh, as some neutral party, the difference between believing Jesus was divine or just another messenger of Allah who was not, in fact, crucified upon the cross of Calvary? If not, why question what I said to her? ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
Bill Rutland on "Misrepresentations"
08/06/2005 - James WhiteYesterday we noted further examples of the means by which Roman Catholic apologists in the tradition of Art Sippo engage in simply dishonest and inaccurate argumentation so as to maintain their audiences. Unlike those folks, we documented our assertions fully. Today I move on to Bill Rutland's comments in the same thread. Mr. Rutland was my opponent only a few months ago on Long Island in the Great Debate X. On a personal level, Mr. Rutland is just a nice fellow. He's your standard "Southern gentleman" you might say. I surely bear him no personal animosity, and though I was very disappointed in his behavior after the debate in reference to not correcting Sippo's outrageous falsehoods regarding pre-debate discussions with Mr. Rutland, he is still considerably more "restrained" than the likes of Sippo.
He responded to Robert's post as follows:
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.
Once again, a few citations, a few examples, would be very nice. It seems that for the Roman Catholics at Envoy, if you disagree with Rome's conclusions, then you just must not "understand." 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?
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.
One again looks around for examples...and finds Rutland offering one (which is most enlightening: see below). The book has been out nearly a decade, and all that has appeared in print has been a few articles in This Rock magazine (responded to on our website, of course) that addressed possibly a grand total of two pages of the book. That's it. If the book is filled with deception and misrepresentation, why not document it? Easy: what these men really are saying is "He disagrees with us, therefore, he must be deceptive." Now, of course, that is circular argumentation and irrational, but it is the heart of their apologetic. So, it is much more effective in the long run to simply repeat the assertion that the books are "bad" and "deceptive" knowing that your audience is considerably more impacted by repetitive claims based upon inherent authority than they are logical argumentation and documentation. And so it goes. Now, as if to fulfill the "we identify all disagreements as inherently dishonest and deceptive" concept, we look at the example he offers: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
Apologetics: The Importance of Honoring Truth
08/05/2005 - James WhiteApologetics is dangerous. As the Apostle said, "knowledge makes arrogant" (1 Cor. 8:1). A love of God, His truth, and intimate possession of the attitude of the Apostle, who "endured all things for the sake of the elect" (2 Tim. 2:10), is necessary for doing God-honoring apologetic activity.
Over the years as I have interacted with apologists for many different religions I have repeatedly been amazed at the willingness of these men (and a few women) to engage in the most outrageous behaviors all in the service of "our faith." I remember years ago a group of Mormons going on for months, literally, over whether Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the "First Vision" was a part of his journal or not, all the while utterly ignoring what the written words actually meant. Any ploy, any misdirection, is worthy to be used for the "higher good" of defending a particular religion's teachings.
Over the past few months on the Dividing Line and on this blog we have documented the contrast between fairly representing those you disagree with and the activities especially of modern Roman Catholic apologists. We regularly play clips, not just 15 second sound bites, but entire presentations, by leading and popular Roman Catholic apologists, demonstrating their misuse of historical and biblical sources, their misrepresentations of others, etc., on our webcast.
This morning I was sent the URL to a new thread that began on the Envoy web forums. Our readers will not be surprised to know that Art Sippo, an "apologist" whose errors have been documented here many times, is at the forefront of the discussion. But Bill Rutland, a recent opponent in debate, has chimed in as well. Once again, the statements made are so easily demonstrated to be false and misleading that it leaves one wondering why these men would engage in such an activity. But the reason is not too difficult to ascertain: they do not believe that their followers will even take the time to read an opposing viewpoint, let alone read the original sources being cited, so, they are "safe."
The thread began with someone indicating they had purchased two of my books, Mary--Another Redeemer? and The Roman Catholic Controversy. Sippo offers his in-depth analysis, referring to my "trashy little book insulting Our Lady." Not surprisingly, there is not a single citation of the book anywhere in Sippo's response. In fact, given how grossly inaccurate it is, one is highly tempted to believe Sippo does not possess it and has never read it. Surely he would feel no compunction to do so given I'm just a "prot heretic" anyway. Only followers of the Sippo style of apologetics could possibly miss the fact that pretending to review a book without ever bothering to cite it is unworthy of any serious minded individual.
On 8/2 Sippo wrote:
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.
Let's see who is lying. Has Sippo read the book? If he did, how did he miss the repeated citations of Catholic writers, such as Mark Miravalle, affirming a subordinate mediatorship role? How did he miss my repeated assertion of the same thing? How did he miss the discussion, drawn from the citation of Roman Catholic writers, of the entire issue of mediation, the "participation defense," and the like? The fact is, either he has not read the book (and hence is lying to his followers) or, if he did, he is lying to his followers about what is in the book in the first place. There simply is no third option. Allow me to do what Art Sippo would not: provide documentation. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]