Svendsen has already lost the debate. Sola Scriptura is pure Pelagianism. It reduces religious authority to mere human opinion. Sola Ecclesia Romana means that we depend on the Church as THE source of revelation and frankly that is correct. Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium can only be found in the Church and interpreted by the Holy Spirit which superintends the Church especially through the Petrine ministry.

We have been treated to many lies from Protestants. They LIE when they say that the Catholic Canon of Scripture was not defined until Trent. They LIE when they say that justification is by faith alone. They LIE when they say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. They LIE when they say that the Bible does not support Catholic doctrine. They LIE when they claim that Catholics have invented new doctrines that contradict the Bible. They LIE when they claim you can have a true Church without Apostolic Succession.

And it goes on and on. The whole Protestant enterprise is one giant LIE.

Why do I say that? Because the truth of the Catholic faith has been well established for 2000 years and innovative heresies which ignore Christian history are purely fallible man-made fiascoes. If you read the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch (107 AD) you would see that NO Protestant religion conforms to the standards of the Early Church in either structure, discipline or doctrine.

Where did all the Protestant forms of religion come from? HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS MADE THEM UP OUT OF THIN AIR!

When Protestants pretend that they are members of the 'church' it is a self-serving, prideful, grandiose lie.

There is no other world for it.

Art

I just saw the following comment by Roman Catholic Art Sippo, posted on Patrick Madrid's web board:

The Bible per se was not fully defined until 350 years after the time of Jesus. It could NEVER have functioned as the sole rule of faith. In fact, until the Bible was readily available via the printing press in an affordable form in the 16th Century, no one in their right mind would have proposed what the Protestants did. It was just plain not feasible.

What makes me chuckle here is not only Sippo's ignorance of the polemical writings of the early church (can you just see those who fought the Arian resurgence after Nicea bemoaning their inability to do so because the Roman Church hadn't defined the canon yet?) but his blindness to his own double standards. Just how is having ten times the amount of written material in the alleged "traditions" of Rome helpful here? Of course, Sippo would direct us to the wonderfully nebulous, unidentifiable, always changing, never to be defined until it is time for a new dogma no one believed in the early church concept of "tradition." It is this kind of bluster that makes the Envoy board look so wildly odd to everyone out in the real world. Of course, the above citation may disappear once Patti Scissor Hands sees it, as is so often the case, but, thankfully, she has no editing privileges on my blog.

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."

   "The ever overbearing and ill informed James Swan has been making ignorant rumblings about Gary's book. I guess the Death Eaters are feeling intimidated by real scholarship so they have to nit-pick without any real understanding of the topic."
   
"I think that Mr. Swan owes Mr. Michuta an apology for his misrepresentation of Gary's book. Furthermore he owes the rest of us an apology for his crass attempt at deceit."

Mr. White indeed did make an offer to debate me, but his offer was unacceptable. We could not come to terms concerning the conduct of the debate and White acted in a discourteous and un-Christian manner towards me. He refused to discuss the terms of the debate with me personally and selected a venue that was completely unaceptable (sic). I informed James that I would not debate him unless it was done in mutual respect. He then sent me a long note filled iwth (sic) lies and insults confirming to me what I have known for years. The man is delusional and has serious mental problems. He needs professional help which I have counseled him to seek for many years. Sadly in the prot cults, you apparently like demagogues and so you facilitate irrational and sub-Christian behavior instead of love of neighbor.

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.

For example, the sad and confused Mr. White claimed in the 1980s and early 1990s that the aorist verb form in Greek referred to a past completed action that could not be repeated. He wrote it in his silly little diatribes and said it openly during debates.

Indeed the aorist MAY have such force in some ATTIC Greek. But if you pick up and good textbook of Koine Greek, you will earn that the aorist in KOINE is used for "the simple past tense." In fact, Moses Da Silva in his short primer of Greek for pastors makes the point that the use of the aorist has "no sermonic importance." Yet Mr. White made a big point of (mis)using the aorist in his apologetics.

i confronted him about this three years ago and now James denies that he EVER made such claims for the aorist. Shades of George Orwell's Ministry of Truth from 1984. "We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia."

This is why I have no respect for such people. I have been around too long and seen them disgrace themselves too many time to take their alleged Christian profession seriously. These people preach that men are totally depraved and then strive to go out and act abominably as if to prove it. They act in a manner that is beneath that of a cultured atheist.

And it is because I do not pretend that they are anything but liars, hypocrites, and poltroons that they vilify me.

   "My assertion that the Council of Trent passed over the question of the canonicity of Esdras in silence is not a matter of my own or anyone else's interpretation of the decree. It is a historical fact."

   "As Gary mentioned, Trent specifically discussed the status of 1 Esdras and decided to pass over the question of its canonicity. But anyone who is familiar with the state of the Biblical Canon in the late 4th Century knows that the term '2 books of Esdras' had been used for over 100 years by Origen and others to refer to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. And St. Jerome was well aware of the difference between 1Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah in the 390's. In the Vulgate translation he made, St. Jerome used the title 1Esdras to refer to Ezra, 2Esdras to refer to Nehemiah, and 3Esdras to refer to the apocryphal 1Esdras from the Septuagint."

   "IMHO the whole thesis is DOA. But White, Webster, Svendsen and the rest of the Kampus Krusade for Kthulhu keep beating this dead horse, so we need to keep dealing with it."

I don't know why you all give Ole' Jimbo White the time of day. I own and have read all of White's books regarding Catholicism, and think they lack scholarship at best and honesty at worst. In fact, I've found so many things misconstrued, not just with his books but with what he says in debates and on his blog, I simply dismiss him. Now, a lot of times he does make honest arguments, but they are laughable at best, usually.

He's the boy that cried wolf, in my opinion.

Where have the Protestant Pundits gone? It seems that the Protestnat [sic] Pundits just kind of drop in to give a few insults and then run away newver [sic] staying to engage in any frank discussion. Very typical. I hae [sic] made a number of charges about Protestantism that the pundits refuse to refute.

I got an e-mail from a Protestnat punpit [sic] who shal [sic] remain namelss [sic] but whose initials are Jimmy Swan. He was all cut up about being banned from this board. Golly! I wrote back to him that this is only done to the REALLY nasty people. I wonder if he got the hint? For those who do not know this fellow, he thinks that Catholics should ignore the general historical consensus that Luther was mentally disturbed and instead accept the position of Fr. Josef Lortz, a german priest in the 1930s who was a CARD CARRYING NAZI and who (among other things) wrote an extended defense of Hitler's book Mein Kampf in contradiction to the position taken by the German hierarchy. Luther was a great hero to the Nazis for a variety of reasons including his rejection of 'decandent'[sic] Rome for 'modern' German values and his snti-Semitism [sic].

Art, we've been through this so many times now, I don't know how else to say it. Please drop the invective and ad hominem and just make your case, critique the other guy's, and move forward with the conversation. All the egregious stuff is just plain unedifying and it has no power to persuade, only provoke.

   What is ultimately wrong with Calvinism is that it is not Catholicism. It was not founded by God as the Catholic Church was, but rather by mere men in rebellion against the Successors of the Apostles.
   Who needs Calvinism? It has no authority to teach. It has no power to save. And all it does is puff men up in their pride and autonomy and encourage them to sit in judgment on the God and His Church.
   We Catholics have everything we need and more. Our religion is embarrassingly rich and diverse and under God's direct superintendence. No one needs anything more than that.

   In this book Mr. White merely asserts his private opinion about the nature of the Bible but fails to give a single complelling (sic) reason for accepting his views other than theolgical (sic) preference. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. White provides none of this.
   he (sic) whole book acan (sic) be summmed (sic) up as follows: "If you want to beleive (sic) my theological conclusions, then you have to accept my premises." Using this he tries to confirm people in their prejudices and does not allow for any disageement within the house of faith.
   Mr. White assumes a lot about the Bible without any grounding or proof. There is a good reason for this. In typical Protestant fashion, he has divorced himself from historic Christianity and its witness to the Scritures (sic). Consequently, he cannot with integrity appeal to the authroity (sic) of tradition in support of his views. He makes some mention of the authority of the Bible in the pre-Deformation Church but fails to give the corresponding evidence that Tradition and the "Regula Fidei" were also held to be norms of faith by the very people he quotes.
   A far better treatment of this topic is an appendix on 'sola scriptura' in the book "Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants" by Dr. Daniel H. Williams. Dr. Williams is an acknowledged international expert on the Arian Controversy and has a REAL doctorate from an accredited university. His short appendix totally undermines the idea that 'sola scriptura' ever represented sound Christian teaching.

   "Anti-Catholics like Swan, Webster, Ensweger [sic], Svendsen, Chick, and White constantly preach to the choir. Their fans want to believe their lies and so -- like their forbear Uncle Adolph -- they tell big ones and they tell them often."

   "In response to the call for a day of prayer and fasting for his conversion, professional apologist and anti-Catholic James White has begun posting letters written by former Catholics who credit Mr. White for helping them to leave the Church. I would encourage all converts to the Catholic Church to post the stories of their conversions in this thread. Please share what issues started the ball rolling, what the biggest obstacles were, and how you finally over came them."

   "As is probably obvious, I dislike James White. However, I ought not to let my dislike of him get the better of me and write a post in mockery of him. Whatever that is, it's not love. If you are wondering where the post and your comments went, I decided to delete it. My apologies to White and to my readers for letting my dislike of White trump the Great Commandment."

I need to lay my cards on the table. IMHO Protestantism is a demonic deception. It is founded on the philosophy of the medieval via moderna and not in any way on the Bible. Nothing remotely resembling the Protestant doctrie of JBFA ever existed until mentally disturbed Martin Luther needed a psychological catharis for his clinical depression. His solution was an amoralist understanding of righteousness as a merely formal declaration completely devoid of ontological foundation. This tallies nicely with a nominalist understanding of concepts but makes no sense in a realist worldview such as we have in the Scriptures. Even Alister McGrath admitted that this was a complete innovation ("a theological novum") unknown previously in Christian theology.

Pseudopodeo has doctored the recording. I have come to expect such tactics from him and other anti-Catholic Protestants. It is more about egoism than about the truth. Sorry. That is the way it is.

Luther suffered from bipolar manic-depressant illness and Calvin was a classic paranoid personality and was convicted of sodomy. They were both unstable. Their errors led to their excommunication. They died outside the Church of Jesus Christ. Everything Pope St. Peter prophesied in his 2nd Encyclical has come to pass in these two backsliders.

Mr. White is an ignorant bigot who has no academic credentials. He was raised by bigots to be a bigot and would parade around in a white sheet burning crosses on people's lawns if there was any money in it. In a strange bizarro parody of Christian discipleship, he hates his enemies and does bad things to people whom he doesn't like. He also is a big whopping LIAR and likes to slander anyone who has the temerity not to kowtow to him. He is known affectionately as Pseudopodeo by those who know him best.

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.

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.

And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." (v.10-12)

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, ² that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. ³ For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, ⁴ who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, ⁵ whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. ⁶ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; ⁷nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."

To what was Jacob elected? Was it to salvation? Or was it to the promise of Abraham? The two are not necessarily synonymous. In the Protestant religions where 'salvation' is equated with an arbitrary act of a capricious God who acts hedonistically solely for "his own good pleasure" salvation is an irrational and unmotivated act that has no logical connection to the qualities of the person being saved.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power overthe clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (v.19-21)

Here is the really deep mystery of God's sovereignty over creation. Even though God is ULTIMATELY responsible for everything that happens, man must accept some moral responsibility. If that were not the case, then God would be the author of sin. This is a problem with the supralapsarian position taken by many Calvinists. We have been made by God and he ordains our ends but SOMEHOW we still have free will and are are (sic) responsible for our actions while God is free from any taint of moral blame. What the objector in these verses was seen as doing according to St. Paul is denying free will and moral responsibility, not divine predestination. God made us with free will and we misuse it. That is not God's fault. It is ours.
   Admittedly, this is not a simple matter to resolve. How can God be toatlly (sic) sovereign while man is still personally responsible for sin? There is no simple answer. This is a mystery that should humble us. But we need to have faith in God and his goodness as well as his overall sovereignty. Likewise we must accept moral responsibility and admit that we are sinners before God.

Paul well knew the objections man presents to the words he had just penned. If God has mercy solely based upon His good pleasure, and if God hardens Pharaoh on the same basis, all to His own glory and honor, how can God hold men accountable for their actions, for who resists His will? Paul's response is swift and devastating: Yes indeed God holds man accountable, and he can do so because He is the Potter, the one who molds and creates, while man is but the thing molded. For a pot to question the Potter is absurd: for man to answer back to God is equally absurd. These words cannot be understood separately from the fundamental understanding of the freedom of the Sovereign Creator and the ontological creaturelinessof man that removes from him any ground of complaint against God. Though already devastatingly clear, Paul makes sure there is no doubt left as to his point:

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:21-24)

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part III)

07/22/2005 - James White

   I continue with my response to Art Sippo regarding Romans 9. Sippo then cited two very lengthy passages of Scripture, Ezekiel 33:8-20, and the entirety of Romans 2. Unfortunately, he offered not a word of exegesis, and not the slightest interaction with the texts themselves, outside of a grand and sweeping conclusion,

In both of these excerpts, the Bible teaches that God will judge men according to their works and not according to some arbitrary standard of his own that merely meets his 'good pleasure' as prots have misrepresented it.

   It is indeed hard to imagine a less accurate reading of Holy Scripture than this summary offered by Art Sippo. Unfortunately, Sippo's conclusion is so brief, so shallow, it is next to impossible to know what he means by it. Is he saying there is some lower standard than God's own perfect holiness? Is he denying that no unclean thing shall enter into God's presence? Or is he saying that men can somehow get themselves cleaned up by some process sufficiently to slip into glory? I can't think of a single Protestant who would see even the faintest glimmer of their own faith in this kind of rhetorical straw-man. It would be fascinating to see Sippo attempt an exegetical demonstration of his claims, but this is a detour from the subject at hand anyway, which is Romans 9. Of course, he makes no attempt to connect this meandering commentary to Romans 9, but just moves back to the subject directly:

Notice that in the above section of Romans 9 St. Paul does NOT say that Esau was damned but rather he emphasizes that "the older will serve the younger." This seems to be dealing with something other than 'salvation' in the strict sense.

   Paul does not, indeed, say Esau was damned. Indeed, that is a rather rare statement in all of Scripture at all, and if one must have such a direct statement, there will be very few who are damned to be sure. In any case, the text does tell us that Paul is addressing God's freedom in choosing Jacob over Esau; that whatever this choice is about it has something to do with a fact Sippo utterly ignores and that is directly contradictory to his own position: "for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls...." Why would Paul refer to actions "good or bad" and make reference to "not because of works but because of Him who calls"? How is a non-salvific choice relevant to "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"? And why would any of this result in the accusation of injustice in v. 14, that is answered with reference to mercy in v. 15? Serious exegesis takes these things into consideration, while those simply seeking to vindicate a human tradition do not need to be bothered with such details. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Art Sippo Lies About Thursday's Debate

06/12/2005 - James White

   I just read the following coming from Art Sippo's keyboard. I honestly hope Bill Rutland will write to him and rebuke him for posting such outrageous lies, I truly do. Sippo writes:

Sadly, Mr. Swan you are coming into the middle of a discussion about which you know nothing. I was privy to the pre-debate antics of Mr. White. He had kept the format of the debate secret until last week when Bill Rutland finally DEMANDED to know it. It was then that Mr. White dropped the bomb-shell on him that there would be short opening statements (I think it was like 10 or 15 minutes) followed by 90 minutes of interogation with 5 minute final statements.

   This is an outrageous lie. There is not a shred of truth in it, and I can document it. Sippo, of course, cannot, but documenting his outrageous claims has never been one of his strong points anyway.
   We have used the same format for debate for a number of years now. Bill Rutland wrote no less than six e-mails to Chris Arnzen, who arranges the Great Debate series, asking to participate. One would think that a person who wants to participate in the series would actually have taken the time to observe the most recent debates in the series itself. In any case, the entire outline of the debate, including the order of speaking, time frames, etc., sent to Mr. Rutland did not differ one iota from the time frames used by Gary Michuta and Mitchell Pacwa in the preceding two debates, and were almost identical to those used by Patrick Madrid (I recall some slight alteration of the time frames agreed to by both sides immediately before the debate in conference with Bill Shishko in the Madrid debate, though I do not recall the details). This alone exposes Sippo's lie (great secret when it has been used for years and video taped, isn't it?), but there is more. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

12:20:56 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

A Quick Look Across the Tiber (With Updates)

10/08/2008 - James White

I was contacted by someone at a university out east asking if I would be willing to debate Roman Catholicism there if they could find someone to join in the debate. I indicated that would be fine, but that they might have some trouble finding a suitable opponent. Evidently, in calling around, one of those asked to engage in the debate contacted Art Sippo, who, of course, declined. Now, realize, I did not go looking for this, someone contacted me and wanted to set something up. But, the facts of the matter are never overly important to Art Sippo.

Yesterday I noticed a new blog entry on Sippo's website. Here it is. Now, you may recall that at one time Sippo declined a challenge to debate live and in public in his current city of residence on the subject of his own choosing. Why? Because...I'm not nice enough, that's why. Now, that would be like Shaq complaining that Spud Webb is too tall. In any case, please note the title of Sippo's entry. Sippo likes to refer to me as "Pseudopodeo." Many years ago my e-mail address included the biblical term ὀρθοποδέω, orthopodeo. It means "to walk straight in accordance with a rule." It was what Peter was not doing in reference to the Gospel in Galatians 2:14. Sippo has used his playground version of this biblical term for quite some time now. Notice how he begins. "It has come to my attention that the Protestant controversialist know (sic: known) affectionately as "Pseudopodeo" is jonesing for a debate." No, a campus group is looking to arrange a debate is the reality.

He continues, "He is trying to sucker some unwitting Catholic into another of his own sided lynchings in a Protestant venue with an Anti-Catholic moderator." Aside from Sippo's continued existence in a fantasy world, the reality is that when I debated Sippo in 1991, the moderator was...that infamous Anti-Catholic Patrick Madrid, then Vice President of Catholic Answers. In fact, when I debated Gerry Matatics for the first time in Long Beach the moderator was another infamous Anti-Catholic...Patrick Madrid. And the location of that debate? A terrible Protestant venue known as...a Roman Catholic church. And when I debated Matatics on the Papacy at the City of the Lord in Tempe, AZ? The Protestant venue was...a Roman Catholic organization, and the Anti-Catholic moderator was...Scott Hahn.

The irony is that the vast majority of my debates with Roman Catholics have been in Roman Catholic venues, or in secular venues, such as catering halls. The moderators have been either Roman Catholics, Jews, or on Long Island, Pastor Bill Shishko, the Moderator of Moderators! Sippo once again blusters out of his deep well of ignorance, playing to his audience but once again showing his deep disregard for truthfulness in the process.

Obviously, Sippo is still in hiding, smarting from his running from my challenge back in 2005. He lost a few disciples over that one, and is still unwilling to engage in meaningful debate. Note the absurd condescension of this man who knows no bounds in his ability to insult. Let's remember these words of the inimitable Sippo:

Mr. White is an ignorant bigot who has no academic credentials. He was raised by bigots to be a bigot and would parade around in a white sheet burning crosses on people's lawns if there was any money in it. In a strange bizarro parody of Christian discipleship, he hates his enemies and does bad things to people whom he doesn't like. He also is a big whopping LIAR and likes to slander anyone who has the temerity not to kowtow to him. He is known affectionately as Pseudopodeo by those who know him best.

The original URL for those comments was http://www.envoymagazine.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1025, but don't bother looking. The poor folks charged with the clean up of the Envoy forums came along with their electronic scoopers and picked up that mess fairly quickly.

Update: Sippo replies with his normative maturity. Note that in the strange, strange world of Art Sippo, my pointing out his own behavior is "slandering" him. Keep that in mind: quoting Sippo to Sippo is slanderous.

Meanwhile, Sippo is not the only one making quite the spectacle out of himself over on the far side of the Tiber. TurretinFan pointed me to the outrageous comments of "The Catholic Champion," Matthew Bellisario, this morning as well. As most of you know, this month is the 25th anniversary of the founding of Alpha and Omega Ministries. We set up an e-mail address (testimonies@aomin.org) so that those who have been blessed by this ministry could share how the Lord has used our little ministry in their lives. I have been posting some of them, and have a lot more to go, to be sure. They are very encouraging, and folks have enjoyed reading about others who have had similar experiences to their own. Of course, I have never presented these as apologetic arguments. They are simply testimonials related to celebrating a quarter century of God's goodness to us in this ministry.

Well, I shouldn't be surprised that a guy who would write about my hats (here) would write this. Let's ignore the context, let's ignore the reality that these testimonials are not only wide-ranging but are not presented as apologetic arguments, and let's create a simply inane basis for an accusation of hypocrisy. Evidently, wild-eyed fanaticism is not limited to Islamic responses that ignore context, either. Here are Matthew's words:

I recall reading many times on Mr White's blog how he just could not stand all of these Catholic conversion stories. Now, on his blog his latest entry is a Catholic who converted to the "Reformed" church because of Dr. White. You see, this "Dr White" is two-faced when it comes to these types of things. It's not OK for a Catholic to post a conversion story, but it is quite OK for him to do so, blowing his own horn so he can show just how great he is. The latest entries on his blog have been littered with people hailing him and his ministry as if he were some sort of prophet. And of course he just cannot resist posting these letters or emails. He also thought it was so great to have professional photos of himself posted on his blog as well. Talk about pride and arrogance. No one Catholic is permitted to post a conversion, but for White it's OK. Well, I will call this for what it is. Two-faced arrogant pride.

Ah, well, it is always good to once in a while take a gander across that smelly green river called the Tiber and be reminded of why I haven't the slightest desire to cross it.

Update: The "Catholic Champion" demonstrated that Art Sippo's penchant for not getting the point of a rebuttal is endemic. This speaks for itself.

14:08:19 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Art Sippo on 1 Corinthians 3 and Purgatory

05/13/2009 - James White

   I noted today another fascinating post from Art Sippo, the Catholic lay apologist (and writer of odd pulp fiction stories). Algo had posted a few quotes that demonstrate, as all rational historians recognize, that dogmas like purgatory developed over time, and hence, are not apostolic in origin. Sippo's response is, once again, classic:

Ah yes, Algo. Spoken like someone who cannot read the Bible himself and must defer to the opinions of others.

Sorry, Charlie. I stand on the words of Scripture. i will quote them for you here so that the readers in this forum may judge for themselves what they mean.


1Cr 3:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.
1Cr 3:11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Cr 3:12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw--
1Cr 3:13 each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
1Cr 3:14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
1Cr 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Now I know that Protestants are truly sycophants to any one who has a degree (whether the degree is phony of not). That is because your false religions are based on human pride and arrogance.

But I think that you and your ilk need a reality check here. We are told by St. Paul that on "the DAY" (which is the day of judgment) God will confront us with fire and reward the good that we have done in the light of it while the flames burn away anything not founded in Jesus and his teaching. This is PRECISELY what Catholic teaching says about Purgatory.

The following is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Purgatory and this includes the references in the CCC to Scripture and Tradition.
[snip]
Please note that the Catechism -- a document produced by consensus of the Bishops for the Catholic Church as a whole - affirms that 1Cor 3:15 refers to Purgatory.

I stand with the Church. You are wrong.

Art

   Let's consider Sippo's claims, especially his attempt to interact with 1 Corinthians 3. But before we do, let's note an interaction I had with an actual Catholic apologist who has standing as a priest:


   So let's consider Sippo's claims.

Ah yes, Algo. Spoken like someone who cannot read the Bible himself and must defer to the opinions of others.

   Remember, this is the same man who will close his post by citing the Universal Catholic Catechism. I don't know, seems very inconsistent to me.

Now I know that Protestants are truly sycophants to any one who has a degree (whether the degree is phony of not). That is because your false religions are based on human pride and arrogance.

   This is called ad hominem argumentation and is irrelevant to the point at hand. But it is classic Sippo anyway.

But I think that you and your ilk need a reality check here. We are told by St. Paul that on "the DAY" (which is the day of judgment) God will confront us with fire and reward the good that we have done in the light of it while the flames burn away anything not founded in Jesus and his teaching. This is PRECISELY what Catholic teaching says about Purgatory.

   Now, as I asked Father Stravinskas, where do you get the idea that this "fire" is in any way related to something that could be called "satispassio," as Rome does? Purgatory is for those who are headed to heaven: they died in a state of grace. The fire of purgatory (whether taken literally over time, as Rome obviously indicated for centuries on end, or now metaphorically, as the kinder, gentler Rome seems to indicate) is meant to cleanse away the temporal punishments of sins. But this testing in the day of judgment is about the motivations of the works done by Christian leaders. There is nothing here about temporal punishments. Besides, there is only one result of the testing in purgatory: everyone ends up in heaven. But there are two results of this testing: there are those whose works remain, and they receive a reward. And there are those who works are burned up, but they are saved anyway. So could someone tell me how there is anyone in purgatory whose works, upon being tested, are shown to be gold, silver, and precious stones? Aren't those the godly, the righteous, who receive a reward? But purgatory is for those who have in fact been judged, but, they are judged to have more temporal punishment for sin upon their souls than they have positive merit, so they must be cleansed and prepared through purgatory. So how does one get from a fire that tests works of Christian leaders, demonstrating who did what they did in life for the glory of Christ, to the fire of purgatory that should only be applied to those having temporal punishments of sin? You sure don't get there by exegesis. Instead, the only way to get this text to teach that kind of theology is by doing what Sippo himself accused Algo of:

Spoken like someone who cannot read the Bible himself and must defer to the opinions of others.

   Physician, heal thyself!

18:06:43 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Today on the Dividing Line

07/07/2005 - James White

   An eclectic show today! Played a clip from John Dominic Crossan the first fifteen minutes, then began about a half hour response to Dr. Art Sippo's post, "Pseudopodeo's PseudoChristianity" from over on the Envoy boards, and followed that up with a quick review of Timothy Enloe's "I said this is a discussion of sola scriptura and how it works but actually it is just a veiled attack on my former compatriots and it really offers you nothing at all that is positive and is actually just a way of confirming you in your rejection of the doctrine" posts on his blog (that was in answer to a question on Envoy's site). Here's the program.

17:29:37 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Roman Catholic Apologetics Goes Presuppositional

02/19/2007 - James Swan

   Never underestimate the writing output of a Catholic apologist. You can be easily buried with facts on several different topics spanning numerous pages. Most of their arguments are exercises in reasoning from the facts back to the Roman Catholic Church. One fact supports another in arguing back to the church Jesus is said to have established. The Catholic apologist will run the spectrum in facts and evidence. Once one fire is put out, multiple others will be started. Get set to read numerous pages of quotes and miscellaneous tidbits of theological information. All the proof one could ever ask for will be put forth. Every argument has a reason. That is of course, until one gets down to the presuppositional level. This is the place I've found few want to go. How is the authority of the Roman Catholic Church proved? What facts prove this?
   I've wondered when Catholic apologists would take an honest look at their initial faith claims and try out presuppositional arguments. Now some of them simply don't understand this approach, as Robert Sungenis demonstrated last month (see question #7). While attending Westminster Seminary, Sungenis claims to have read many works by Cornelius Van Til (see, Patrick Madrid (ed), Surprised By Truth (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994), p.111). Yet he still caricatured the presuppositional approach by saying, "Unfortunately, Van Til denied any recourse to Evidentialism, and he chided the Roman Catholic Church (and any Protestant, e.g., Francis Schaeffer, Josh McDowell) for depending on evidences to preach and convince one of the claims of Jesus Christ. Essentially, Van Til's approach was one sided, and that is usually the case for Calvinistic approaches to philosophy and Scripture."
   Sungenis either misread Van Til or, has not really read his books. Contrary to Sungenis, the presuppositional approach does not deny the use of reason, argument, and evidence. These only make sense and find meaning in the context of a theistic worldview. Since this is God's world, every fact can be used as evidence to point to Him as creator. Van Til's presuppositional approach can start anywhere with any fact. Presuppositional apologetics actually gives the freedom to use every single piece of evidence existing.
   On the other hand, for the last two months Art Sippo has been busy defining and defending Catholic Presuppositionalism. Normally vicious towards "Prots" (see for instance, Sippo's kind words of appreciation for my Luther research), Sippo uncharacteristically refers to Van Til's method as brilliant.
   Sippo says, "As to the foundation of the Chritian [sic] religion, the ultimate presupposition is Jesus Christ himself. All authority in Christendom comes from him and ultimately our faith in God is faith in the God and Father of Jesus Christ as revealed to us by his Son." And then comes the thrust of Sippos argument: "How do we know that Catholicism is necessarily true? First of all, Catholicism derives its authority directly from Christ in unbroken succession. Jesus is the self-authenticating true human being that all men can recognize as the true head of the race. He did not write a Bible. He established an institution with ministers in a succession of authority and then he promised it the Holy Spirit as its guarantor of all truth (John 14). The entire patrimony of the Church included Scripture, Tradition, liturgy, etc. All of these communicate Christ to us in a complimentary fashion."
   I actually have to thank Sippo for stating this argument. It has been my experience that Roman Catholics never admit upfront faith in Rome's authority as an unproven beginning presupposition. In dialoging with Roman Catholics I try to press this point: what evidence do you have establishing Rome's infallible authority? When asked how the Roman Catholic Church can establish her authority, they cannot be allowed to answer it is proved by the testimony of the Scriptures. An appeal to Matthew 16:18 should not serve as a basis for proof of a Roman Catholic worldview. If they do, they are not being consistent. They would be proving the authority of the Scriptures by the Church, and the authority of the Church by the Scriptures. Sippo falls into this with his appeal to John 14.
   How then does one respond to Sippo's presuppositions? Van Til's arguments are very useful in dialoging with those who deny the Biblical worldview. Sippo though claims belief in Jesus Christ, and he has at least some sort of Christian worldview. Van Til originally used the phrase, transcendental reasoning in describing his apologetic approach. It is reasoning from the impossibility of the opposite. In other words, any position opposed to Christianity is impossible. This means all the facts of reality will point to the truth of the Christian worldview. It is the only worldview thatwill give coherence to the facts. The facts will all point to the necessity and reality of Christianity as a beginning presupposition. Any other worldview will not be able to make sense of the facts.
   Once a person subjectively places faith in the Roman Church, simply ask them to apply their chosen authority as a template for reality. If it works, all the facts of reality will support the initial faith claims. If you read this blog regularly, you know they do not. This means you will still be involved with evaluating the evidence. But keep in mind Roman Catholics cannot prove the authority of the Roman Church. It is your task to show their choice to be Roman Catholic is a faith choice, not a decision based on evidence and reasoning. It is your task to show the impossibility of this authority giving coherence to all the facts.
   Sippo's use of presuppositional apologetics proves the point that I've been making for years. The choice to become Roman Catholic is the placing of one's faith in the authority of the Church. It is a subjective fallible choice. It is a decision of the heart. For a Catholic convert, it is the giving up of Biblical and scriptural presuppositions, which do give coherence to the facts. It is the taking on of a sola ecclesia presupposition, which sinks the facts. For a closer look at a presuppositional evaluation of Roman Catholicism, see this article by Greg Bahnsen, Is Sola Scriptura a Protestant Concoction? A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura.

18:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part V)

07/24/2005 - James White

   Sippo continues in reference to Romans 9:14-16,

This is locus classicus for the doctrine that there is no strict merit before God. God is not obligated to reward the creature for morally upright works done by the natural man apart from God or His covenants. This does not exclude the possibility of condign merit {due to the obedience of faith under enabling grace} or even congruous merit {rewards based on a covenantal agreement}.

Jacob and Esau were not a part of the Abrahamic covenant? Where does the text discuss such issues as condign or congruous merit? Such an introduction of extraneous concepts utterly derails the Apostle's argument, showing once again how the faithful Roman Catholic simply cannot engage in direct exegesis of the text when Rome has "infallibly" defined what the text can or cannot say. When you find someone not deriving their beliefs from the text, but instead having to argue, "well, that does not necessarily exclude what I believe," you know you are looking at unbiblical presentation. Once again Calvin spoke with clarity:

It may indeed appear a frigid defence that God is not unjust, because he is merciful to whom he pleases; but as God regards his own authority alone as abundantly sufficient, so that he needs the defence of none, Paul thought it enough to appoint him the vindicator of his own right. Now Paul brings forward here the answer which Moses received from the Lord, when he prayed for the salvation of the whole people, I will show mercy, was Gods answer, on whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. By this oracle the Lord declared that he is a debtor to none of mankind, and that whatever he gives is a gratuitous benefit, and then that his kindness is free, so that he can confer it on whom he pleases; and lastly, that no cause higher than his own will can be thought of, why he does good and shows favor to some men but not to all.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

The Roman Catholic Quandry

05/05/2009 - James White

   I wanted to follow up on James Swan's observations regarding the state of popular Roman Catholic apologetics. I was reminded of an incident from 1999 as I read the thread on the Catholic Answers web boards. I debated Hamza Abdul Malik that year after having debated Robert Sungenis. As the crowd came into the building, I noticed some ladies sitting down front who had been at the previous debate. I believe it was Chris Arnzen who spoke to them. He told me that they had indicated that they are Roman Catholics, "but we just love James White and enjoy hearing him defend the faith against those who deny the Trinity" or something along those lines. It struck me then how difficult it must be for most conservative, believing Roman Catholics in these days. They know, in their heart of hearts, that the majority of the Magisterium is significantly less conservative than they are---a Magisterium they must believe to be God-guided and, in matter of faith and morals, infallible. Yet they know many of their priests, bishops, and Cardinals are at the very least inclusivists, and more probably universalists. Most pay at the very best a lip-service to inerrancy, limiting it to a merely accurate communication of the basics of the faith, nothing more.
   The result is not surprising: when you have open, aggressive attacks upon the faith by the new Atheists, or by Bart Ehrman, the Jesus Seminar, etc., who provides the clearest, most compelling responses? Rome's scholars? We all know better, and the conservative Roman Catholic knows it, too. It plainly bothers the consistent Roman Catholic that he or she knows that the strongest replies come from allegedly "defective" churches or even "non-churches," vaguely identified as containing "separated brethren." Why wouldn't the Infallible Church be the first ones on the battle-line, drawing from this allegedly "living tradition" to provide cutting-edge defenses of the inspiration and trustworthiness of the Bible? In reality, only a small portion of Rome's educational system contains men or women who would not break out laughing if asked if they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Just go visit Boston College sometime and survey the range of viewpoints expressed by Roman Catholic scholarship.
   I know there are very sincere folks manning the fort over on the far side of the Tiber. I noted Ben Douglass' article on bad arguments that are heard with the drumbeat of regularity coming from Steve Ray, Tim Staples, John Martignoni, Patrick Madrid, Art Sippo and the rest of the pop Roman Catholic crowd. I appreciate that a small minority of those defenders actually listen to what we are saying and can set aside enough of their bias to actually hear a sound argument when it is presented. But those folks are in an even smaller minority in the Roman camp. I noted Art Sippo's always predictable response to the Douglass et al article:

You know, I wish that alleged "Catholics" would stop doing the work of the enemies of the Church and telling us what we should not do. I find the list puerile and frankly ludicrous.

White likes the list because it absolves him of having to deal with some arguments that he doesn't like.

Protestantism is false religion. Every bit of it. None of it is valid. Even the parts where they try to emulate Historic Christianity are done so tritely and with poor results. What is the use of declaring that Jesus was really God and really man when you refuse to believe it when he said "This is my body...This is my blood?"
I have no need of any such list and I advise the person who put it up to take it down and mind his own business.

Art

   Ah, you gotta love Sippo! Consistent as the morning star with his flaming rhetoric. I note in passing that he also recently explained Irenaeus' odd interpretation of Jesus being in his six decade (part of his recapitulation concept) by saying that "30" was like "50" back then due to life expectancy. There you go! I guess "50" is the new "30" has meaning---in the fascinating world of Art Sippo.

14:10:42 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

An Open Invitation

01/06/2005 - James White

     The RC pep rally and general back-slapping rave going on at DA's blog has continued unabated for a few days now, though I think eventually even these folks will get tired of repeating the same mantras over and over again. "Wow, that James White, we sure have refuted him, haven't we!" "Yeah, sure did! Wow, he's as dumb as a bag of hammers!" etc. and etc. At the moment, the file I've created saving the comments is 65 pages long. And if there are two paragraphs that can be taken seriously, I'd be surprised.
     Most of the comments are quite humorous. But a repeated theme, one poured out regularly by the likes of "Patrick," Jim Scott (read only if you are wearing asbestos) and Jonathan Prejean is that in point of fact, I have not been dealing with Armstrong's work fairly or accurately, and more importantly, that others have "refuted me." Even little Apolonio chimed in, sorta like, "Yeah, me too, me too!" We even had a Muslim come on and join the fun, fellow by the name of Josh Wilcox. Not an overly pleasant fellow, I must say. I'm looking forward to his debate with Sam Shamoun. :-) ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

03:30:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Yesterday on the Dividing Line

02/15/2008 - James White

   Yesterday on The Dividing Line the callers drove the topic after I spent the first portion of the program discussing the renewed move to define Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Co-Mediatrix, and Advocate for the people of God, as discussed by Art Sippo in a recent blog article. Then the callers had some pretty tough exegetical and hermeneutical questions. Here's the program (free/high quality).

12:39:04 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part II)

07/20/2005 - James White

I continue with my response to Art Sippo regarding Romans 9. Sippo wrote,

This is based on a philosophy of Voluntarism stemming form Ockham's theory 'absolute divine power.' According to Voluntarism, if God is bound to act by a moral standard, that standard sits in judgement on Him and He is not truly sovereign. 'Good and evil' in this system are defined purely by the will of God, not by the actions that God requires of men. Since there is no essential goodness, God can dispose of any person without regard to what they have done. The Bible real [sic] knows nothing of this demonic idea. Instead, it preaches the existence of essential goodness and evil and promises rewards and punishments accordingly.

   Actually, it is based upon the clear testimony of Scripture, not a theory of Ockham. It is hard to know exactly what Sippo means here. Is he postulating that good and evil exist outside of God as abstract principles to which God is subject? What is their origin, if this is the case? Is God actually bound by the same laws He has for men, or does His law reflect His essential nature while He is not bound to the same context as the creature? Obviously, Sippo is not accurately representing the real situation when he writes that from the Reformed perspective God "can dispose of any person without regard to what they have done." If by this he means God is free to do with His creation as He wishes, I would gladly affirm this; however, the context is not a theoretical one, but a soteriological one, and hence Sippo is presenting an egregious caricature, for while God's mercy and grace in granting life to the elect is surely ground solely in His sovereign pleasure, His disposition of the wicked is ground in His holiness and their sinfulness. This is such a basic element of Reformed teaching that one is forced to wonder what Sippo thinks he gains by such misrepresentation. But at this point I remember that he is not seeking to convince me, or anyone who believes as I do. He is speaking only to his constituency, no one else.
   Far from being demonic, the truth of the absolute sovereignty of God to act as king over His own creation is present throughout Scripture, and the Bible makes sure to assert that this freedom extends to that area where God is most glorified, that of the salvation of His people in Christ. I note some of the primary passages below.

Genesis 20:6: Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her.
Exodus 34:24: I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 2:30: But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the LORD your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.Joshua 11:20: For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Ezra 11:1, 7:27: In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing...Praise be to the LORD, the God of our fathers, who has put it into the king's heart to bring honor to the house of the LORD in Jerusalem...
Job 14:5: Man's days are determined; you have decreed the number of his months and have set limits he cannot exceed. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

01:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Odds and Ends

07/16/2005 - James White

   It sure has been hot in Phoenix lately, and now the humidity is starting to inch upward, indicating the beginning of the monsoon flow. The humidity has increased four-fold this week. I know, in comparison with places like New Orleans, we are still as dry as a bone, but 115 feels a lot worse with four times the humidity, believe me.
   The increase in the "icky factor" will be curtailing the miles I will be able to continue to rack up...on my bike. Yes, for those who know my history and know that from May of 1993 to September of 1998 I was a hard-core "roadie" (yes, I have continued following Le Tour), racking up 29,500 miles during that time, you also know I got off the bike in late 1998 and hit the weights. Well, I'm back on the bike, and am headed back down the weight scale--not as fast as I'd like, but I've already seen major aerobic improvement (decreased resting heart rate, body fat percentage, increased aerobic capacity, etc.), and with the ride I hope to get in this morning (planning on 31 to 33 miles), will rack up a second week above 100 miles ridden. Lord willing, I will pass the 30,000 miles mark late this coming week. It feels great to be back on the road. They have improved a lot of cycling gear over the past seven years, that's for sure, and with mp3 technology I can also help to redeem the time on the bike by studying for upcoming duties/teaching/debating/writing.
   I mentioned a really exciting book project a few weeks ago, and all I can say right now is that it is a "go," I just can't really go into any details. As soon as I can say more, I will.
   For those in the Chicago area: I have been invited to speak in the chapel at Moody Bible Institute September 21 and 22 of this year. I may get to speak in a few other venues there at MBI as well. I am really looking forward to meeting the fine folks there. I've never been to MBI, but I've always felt a connection, since my father graduated from MBI in 1953, and my parents met while he was a student there (married shortly after his graduation). I have arranged for my father to come with me, as he has not had the opportunity of returning to his alma mater since his graduation fifty two years ago! So, it will be quite a trip for both of us, Lord willing.
   Finally, I am putting together an article for the blog in response to a brief discussion of Romans 9 by Catholic apologist Art Sippo. It is so rare to get these folks onto proper ground for real examination, but here we are given a chance to test the exegetical capacities of a faithful servant of Rome. There is even a point where Dr. Sippo ventures into Greek grammar. I hope to get the series up next week.

01:00:00 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

An Exegetical Refutation of Art Sippo, Catholic Apologist, on the Subject of the Divine Freedom of God in Salvation as Found in Romans 9 (Part IV)

07/23/2005 - James White

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. (v.14-16)

   Our readers might find it useful to compare and contrast Art Sippo's comments on this text with my own from my response to Dr. Norman Geisler in The Potter's Freedom. First Sippo's commentary:

This is a classic statement about the sovereignty of God. Notice what this DOESN'T say. It does not say that God will condemn whomever he wills to but only that he will be merciful on anyone whom he chooses. This is why the Council of Orange in 529AD determined that God predestines the righteous to glory but does not actively predestine the wicked to perdition. This council's teaching was defined as official Church teaching by the Popes contemporary to it and reaffirmed later at the Council of Nicea II in 787AD.

Now, my own:

Paul is ready with an Old Testament example to buttress his arguments: Exodus 33. This tremendous passage contains themes that find their full expression only in the New Testaments full revelation of the doctrines of Gods free and sovereign grace. God showed mercy and compassion to Moses, choosing to reveal His glory as an act of grace. We must understand, in light of the prevailing attitude of the world around us, that Gods mercy, if it is to be mercy at all, must be free. Literally the text speaks of mercying and compassioning, again verbs of action that find their subject in God and their object in those chosen by His decision. It does not say, "I will have mercy on those who fulfill the conditions I have laid down as the prerequisite of my plan of salvation." Both the source of compassion and mercy and the individual application find their ultimate ground only in the free choice of God, not of man.
   This divine truth, so offensive to the natural man, could not find a clearer proclamation than Romans 9:16. We truly must ask, if this passage does not deny to the will of man the all-powerful position of final say in whether the entire work of the Triune God in salvation will succeed or fail, what passage possibly could? What stronger terms could be employed? The verse begins, "so then," drawing from the assertion of God that mercy and compassion are His to freely give. Next comes the negative particle, "not," which negates everything that follows in the clause. Two human activities are listed: willing and literally "running," or striving. Human choice and human action. Paul puts it bluntly: it is not "of the one willing" nor is it "of the one running." Paul uses two singular present active participles. The fact that they are singular shows us again the personal natureof the passage. The interpretation that attempts to limit Romans 9 to "nations" cannot begin to explain how nations "will" or "run." In contrast to these Paul uses a present active participle to describe Gods act of "mercying," showing mercy. Man may strive through his will and his endeavors, but God must show mercy.

...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Catholic Apologist Dr. Art Sippo Says: Calvinists Are Psychotics

02/07/2010 - James Swan

When it comes to Martin Luther, there are a number of Roman Catholic apologists that become expert pop-psychologists. I don't recall Dr. Sippo being either a psychologist or a psychiatrist, yet he recently was able to make a clinical evaluation on a man who died hundreds of years ago, living in a different culture and country:

My charge that Luther was flagrantly psychotic when he wrote [The Bondage of the Will] is a clinical one. Luther makes a number of seriosuly[sic] disturbed remarks in this book. Among them, he actually says that the human mind is like a horse with an empty saddle and that either God or the Devil rides in it. This is clearly not the perception of a normal human mind. When I studied psychiatry in med school the professor told us "There are only 2 kinds of people who deny free will: psychotics and Calvinists." In my experience, there is only ONE kind of person. [source]

The tactic here employed is called psychohistory. This pseudo-science holds history can be understood by applying psychoanalysis to a historical figure. Those who have attempted to evaluate Luther via this method have come to a wide range of differing conclusions. For instance, Heinrich Denifle's approach was the "the pansexual interpretation of the Reformation." According to Denifle, Luther's psychosis was inherent lust, secret vices, an overpowering sex drive, and an opposition to celibacy. Immediately following Denifle were the works of Hartmann Grisar. Where Denifle wants you to despise Luther as a depraved sex maniac, Grisar wants you to pity him for being a psychopath.

Protestant historian Preserved Smith used Freudian analysis and theory, particularly the role of sex in personal development. For Smith, Luther was a product of an alcoholic parent, a sufferer of the Oedipus complex, an abused child, struggled with depression, had an infatuation with demonism, and had sexual repression. Smith then interprets these factors as the causes of some of Luther's central doctrines. The most famous of all the psychohistorians writing on Luther is Erik Erikson's book, Young Man Luther (1958). Erikson used a modified Freudian approach. He approached religious phenomena with prejudice: Freud argued that religious phenomena are to be understood on the model of the neurotic symptoms of the individual: hence, a materialistic outlook on religion. Freud saw religious concerns within an individual as reflecting something "wrong" in a human. Erickson does the same with his treatment of Luther. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

21:16:21 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Checking In With The Other Side Of The Tiber

04/19/2007 - James Swan

I regularly visit Roman Catholic blogs and websites to see what the apologists are up to. Here are a few highlights.
   
   Gerry Matatics says he's continuing his 300-city mega tour "contrary to the hopes of my many enemies, critics, and detractors." Gerry says:

   "I pull no punches and make no apologies for opposing, and exposing, the novelties, oddities, heresies, and blasphemies promoted by what purports to be the "official" Catholic establishment, but in fact is nothing but a band of unauthorized apostates and usurpers who have been permitted by God's providence to commandeer the infrastructure of the previously Catholic institutions of our world since the death of Pius XII precisely in order to bring about the universal apostasy God has patiently and persistently repeatedly warned us, over the last 6000 years, must precede the return of His Son."

   Now that's quite a sentence! I actually caught one of Gerry's mega-lectures last summer. Gerry's new position is eschatological. He emphasizes the church is in a "last days crisis." Thus, the entire undercurrent of his talk had a sense of urgency, reminiscent of those dispensational evangelical church services I grew up in where the rapture was going to happen at any moment. The signs of the times prove this to be the case. Gerry holds the majority of Catholics have been swept away by great deceptions in last 40 years, particularly ecumenism. Not only the Bible predicts this, but also various approved sightings of Mary throughout history have similarly confirmed the great falling away of the Roman Catholic Church in the last days.
   
   Over on Patrick Madrid's Envoy discussion boards, a question was asked about Madrid's unspoken policy to not allow any links to aomin.org. The questioner also commented, "I just read an article on envoy where Pat Madrid thanked White & Co. for advertising envoy and the forums. Is this ban because envoy doesn't want to advertise for protestant pages?" Well, what's the deal Patrick? No response from Mr. Madrid, but Catholic apologist Art Sippo took the helm of the good ship Envoy:

   "This message will likely get bleeped, but HEY! You can't blame a guy for trying! Envoy linking to Mr. White's material is like B'nai B'rith linking to the Aryan Nation website for an opposing view on the Holocaust and Nazi genocide. It is very obvious to us that Herr Weiss... I mean MR. White follows the doings on this board very closely and often überreagiert... uh, overrects to what we say here. But this does not mean that we have to provide a tyrannkanzel.... sounding board for all the sturm und drang ... controversial comments he makes."

   Nothing like the poetic Dr. Sippo! Indeed, Dr. Sippo was correct, this discussion was deleted off the Envoy boards. Anyone visiting Planet Envoy immediately realizes the contributors spend a lot of time reading aomin.org. Madrid should at least explain why his fellow apologists are not allowed to link the web site which so consumes their discussions.
   
   Finally, another "doctor" of sorts has put together an interesting blog entry. Dr. Dave Armstrong has finally put together a link which is beyond refutation. Protestants beware, the argumentation and information will not be easy to refute.

17:26:55 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Pots in Rebellion Against the Potter on the DL Today

07/28/2005 - James White

   There has been an explosion of "anti-Calvinism," taking the form, as it normally does, of a field full of straw-men soaked in kerosene, all to cover over the utter lack of exegetical foundation, over on the Envoy web forums as a result of the series posted here in response to Art Sippo on Romans 9. I spent the first 45 or so reading sections and responding, and then we took some good calls. Went a few minutes long. Here's the program.
   Oh, and a new version of UltraFractal was released today, so I thought I'd play around with an old fractal file I had, and make a nice, soothing, calm, yet colorful, background fractal for use on desktops. Here's the 1280x1024 version.

20:01:24 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

tiredofNJ Replies to Dave Armstrong

06/14/2005 - James White

   I guess Dave Armstrong has gone off about the Rutland debate as well, but since I removed his blog from my RSS feed (he posted a reverse-color picture of me from years ago and I finally decided that life would be so much more enjoyable without having to encounter such material on a daily basis) I haven't seen it. But I liked what tired had to say in response to DA, and the way he said it, so here it is:

Dave's post makes two claims. One, James White did a, b, c, d, e, f-z14, and when these are linked to passing statements he made about Rutland ("Notice once again the 'poison the well' technique."), James is a hypocrite. I've never cared for this sort of argumentation, the hallmark of embittered spouses and certain political activists, storing up grievances and unloading them when opportune. These matters should be dealt with at the time or left alone; if you did try to resolve them and they were not met to your satisfaction, that doesn't make them relevant. For even if James really is the Pharisee of all Pharisees it doesn't negate his claims against Rutland. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. He did not condone lying about them.
   The second claim is that James is boasting about the debate (with occasional, subsequent mention of Rutland perhaps doing the same). Dave links us to this as James's "post-debate" analysis. This is James's post-debate analysis. I attended the debate and James's speaking engagements in the days following. He was happy with the debate. The post Dave linked to re: Rutland was in response to Rutland's false claims about the debate, not to the debate's content. James's position has always been "that both sides should simply leave these judgments to the listeners (let their arguments speak for themselves)."
   If it was really "his ongoing goal, apparently, to make all Catholic dialogue opponents look as ridiculous as possible," why did James say he was happy with the debate? Why did he hold out hope as late as June 12th that Rutland would correct Sippo's errors?
   The "hand-shaking controversies" section is inane. I've attended 14 of James's debates. He is always courteous to his opponent and expects the same from his audience. This is one of the reasons he has a good relationship with Mitch Pacwa (last I checked, a Roman Catholic). He did not shake hands with anyone for the rest of the weekend. He even apologized for it last Sunday from the pulpit of a Baptist church. Baptists aren't RCs.
   Dave hopscotched through the interaction, picking out enough to justify another White-is-a-hypocrite conclusion ("if Rutland is guilty of these things, that it is nothing that White has not been doing himself for many years"). But those things that Dave calls "these things" were not the crux of the discussion. The issues prompting James's posts were Sippo's falsehoods and Rutland's eventual endorsement of them, nothing else.

12:24:51 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

On Thursday's Dividing Line

07/05/2008 - James White

   We finished the veneration of the saints debate on Thursday's DL, noting once again that while the outcome of the debate was, in fact, painfully obvious, what was painfully obvious was the exact opposite of what was claimed by Patrick Madrid on Catholic Answers Live. And again, I repeat my offer: to the Roman Catholic who called CA Live, and to the Protestant to which that person is speaking, a free copy of the debate, if they will but listen to it carefully. We are truly that confident of the outcome of that debate. We moved from there to a similar clip from Tim Staples, and I made some comments on the Art Sippo encounter as well. Here's the program (free/high quality).

19:16:59 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Jonathan Prejean At It Again

08/21/2006 - James White

   The "Crimson Catholic" seems to be jumping from forum to forum hoping to be noticed or at least to be seen as a great defender of the Catholic faith. I noted tonight that he has decided I am a Nestorian now--if you don't bow down before statues or think there is a difference between latria and dulia and hyper-dulia, you evidently "implicitly deny the single personhood of Christ." Yeah, I know, that's absurd on its face, and it is absurd the deeper you dig. But it is the best Prejean has, because he can't engage the text. For all his constant insults and ad-hominem, he, like most of his compatriots, can only argue for a particular interpretation of what one church father said against another. He has trotted out Nicea II, to which I say, "Wonderful---how about dealing with the biblical evidence I have presented?" Don't hold your breath, it won't be happening. That's not Prejean's thing. He's in Art Sippo's camp, and anyone who has experienced the blast-furnace "charity" of Sippo knows what that means.
   You see, these folks just do not realize that for all their attacks upon me, my scholarship (not a one of them has even tried to touch my published journal articles, for example---if I'm so dumb, shouldn't it be easy to pick apart, fairly and accurately, what I've published?), my character, and any number of other things, people who are really thinking realize that they have completely ignored the actual substance of my objections posted recently on this blog. And that fact speaks volumes to them. The few who are concerned about this might well take the time to read, or to listen to the debates we have done. And they will find that for all the wild-eyed rhetoric of an Art Sippo or the sophistry of a Crimson Catholic, all of that is a mere distraction from the real issues.
   I'd love to have Prejean call back into the Dividing Line and prove me wrong that the central semantic core of dulia and latria intersect smack dab in the middle of db;[' so that any person seeking to give pure hd'Ab[] to God cannot in any way, shape, or form, pretend to be "serving" an image while only "worshipping" God. Possibly he would like to discuss the relationship of the Hebrew concept of worship and service to the commonly used New Testament description of true Christians as dia,konoi / dou/loi? Lord willing and we can get the server operational tomorrow, he'll have his chance. We will see how many of the brave souls who have launched their Katyusha rockets my direction will actually stand forth and be counted when the phone lines are open, or whether they will be counted amongst the Internet Hezbollah who are brave for a moment and then hide amongst the women and children when it matters.
Update: the same Shane I referred to below posted a strong rebuke, alleging that I have somehow "demonized" my opponents here. Once again, something tells me that if the roles were reversed, all of a sudden the blinders would come off and Shane would not be confused. Katyusha rockets are against the rules of war since they cannot be aimed at a particular target. They are meant to do general damage. So too are the inane, empty, vacuous ad-hominems that make up the substance of the Roman Catholic commentary to which I have been replying. They are random attacks that are not aimed at specific targets such as the biblical evidence or reasoning behind denying the propriety of Rome's dogmatic affirmation of prayers to saints, angels, and Mary. Further, those firing them are cowards. They hide amongst civilian populations so that if they are attacked it will always be possible to cry foul. Aside from Shane himself, and Mr. Prejean, both of whom called once, the rest of the rabble-rousing crowd that is so quick with the slander and so slow with the study does the same thing. Need I post examples? It would be quite easy to do so, as Shane well knows. I've watched it over and over again. They will bravely proclaim my error---until I face them directly. And then all of a sudden the bravado is gone, and often times, so are they, scurrying off only to come back again when they feel the "coast is clear." The parallels should be obvious, but again, prejudice blinds the mind to even the obvious.

21:42:33 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Amazing Stuff on Madrid's Blog

05/27/2005 - James White

   The oddest things happen in the weeks leading up to debates. I have observed that over the years. I remember prior to a debate on Long Island years ago Sungenis and Sippo and their followers were going nuts sending me nastigrams. And so here it is, less than two weeks prior to the Long Island debate, and what happens? Well, I have Sungenis doing his thing (oddly, the RC's going after me in other areas would go after him as well, and vice-versa, which sort of makes me chuckle a bit, in light of Madrid's own cooperation with Sungenis in the past, and the claim that following Rome leads to such unity), and then over on Madrid's web-board Art Sippo, one of the worst examples of behavior amongst their "apologists" is holding forth, engaging in the most personal, vitriolic ad-hominem you can imagine (any man who has to insult your mother is obviously not much of a real challenge), and evidently with the blessings of Madrid himself (so much for RC apologists and the "high road").
   So it seems Madrid has had to get into the fray. He's posted some articles on his equivalent of a blog. Now, very usefully, he has posted the text from his This Rock hit piece against me from 1993, the one I referred to below. Here it is. Now, read that, then my response, here. I'd be happy to point you to his rebuttal to my documentation of his errors, but...there is none. A decade has passed, and there has not been any reply to my knowledge. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

02:00:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -