Archive for category: Roman Catholicism

Ignorance may be bliss but wilfull 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 teaching. And his presupposition

Bill 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

In 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

Yesterday 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

Apologetics 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

I stopped being surprised a long time ago at the non-responses offered by Roman Catholic apologists to substantive and especially exegetically-based criticisms of their positions. Sippo’s website, for example, links to the 15-second long context-less video snippet of an interchange between myself and Gerry Matatics on sola scriptura (the same clip I discussed a few weeks ago on the blog,

We complete our review and refutation of Art Sippo’s comments on Romans 9 with the final portion of the chapter he addressed on the Catholic Legate website. It is in this section that Dr. Sippo attempted to present information on the original language of the text, and in the process, demonstrated that it is best not to do that if

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

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

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.

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

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

Art Sippo, a Catholic layman and medical doctor, is well known for his virulent attacks upon “prots” and defenders of the “Deformation,” etc. He has posted an attempt to interpret and explain Paul’s presentation concerning the freedom of God in Romans 9, and though Dr. Sippo will not debate these issues live in public (he seemingly will only debate a

I had noted that Mr. Latar had begun replying as soon as I posted my review of his position against sola scriptura and that this would result in a rejoinder from me. Upon reading his attempt, I see no reason to do so. There is no meaningful exegetical position put forward, no refutation of what I have said, with which

In our first installment we came to the point in Mr. Latar’s presentation where he made the rather amazing claim that 2 Thes. 2:15 presents us with two infallible rules of faith, one written, and one oral, and that this disproves sola scriptura. As I have pointed out, Rome does not tell us a single word Paul ever said to

I had written: And I cannot help but contrast such a statement with Jesus’ own words, which again so strongly illustrate the contrast between the anthropocentric mind-set of Roman Catholicism (God wants to save, tries to save, but fails to save so often because He is dependent upon the cooperation of man’s will–and yes, I know, that’s Arminianism as well)

What is the best way to hide the fact that you have been guilty of engaging in consistent ad hominem argumentation and are not, in fact, capable of a meaningful defense of your position? Of course! Accuse the other guy of everything you have done! If he says someone who is in error is “confused,” don’t look at that as

Part of the reason I even responded to the assertions of Patty Bonds last evening was because I knew, in light of the current spate of “Hate White” posts following the Great Debate X, one of those, probably on Envoy, who are so highly impressed with themselves, would seek to jump all over it. That would give me the opportunity

“I think the belief in eternal security is the single most dangerous teaching being spread in the name of Christianity.” EnvoyEncore Now, it is very possible–in fact, highly likely–that the author of this statement on Patrick Madrid’s blog, Patty Bonds, is reacting to “once saved, always saved” as found in the likes of a Bob Wilkin. I would be shocked

I don’t know…maybe you all can figure this kind of rant out: That’s why white doesn’t post the answers to my questions on his blog. Answer the questions in the threads: Is Jesus Christ God, is the Holy Spirit God etc. He can’t answer those questions because he thinks he is a god. He is a pretex evangelist. Any obedient

According to one thread on the CA Forums, a small group of folks are praying the rosary for my conversion today. I mentioned this on the DL last night. And I noted then the fact that I find this extremely odd. I’m a Calvinist. I believe God can change the heart, and I’m consistent in believing that and accepting the

As if on cue Art Sippo demonstrates that not only is Angelz’ insight spot-on, but that Art is blind to his own constant use of ad-hominem. Doesn’t look like any of his friends are up to helping him see, either. He writes today:

I just got an e-mail through the website from Ryan L. in response to the blog entry below. Evidently, since Ryan didn’t call, and gave as his e-mail address notreal@fakeaddress.com, Ryan doesn’t want to hear back from me. So I won’t reproduce the e-mail. In essence, I was told that it is OK to refer to me as a rabid dog

This speaks for itself. Sadly, Robert doesn’t understand that. Thanks for making my point, Bob.

Ryan L has posted on another thread in the CA forums regarding my invitation to him to call in and back up his allegations against me: Yeah…I read it. It kinda’ feels like being called out by Jack Chick. If I’m not with my wife in the delivery room (which is a distinct possibility), I may indeed give him a

OK, I’ve read some really, really odd stuff lately on Catholic web boards, but I just set a new record. Or, I guess, I should say john6jmj over at Planet Envoy did. See, Angelz had enough of the Sippo stuff…Sippo’s bombastic, ad hominem filled invectives, his double-standards, his “I’m all brave and you are a chicken” thing, and when you

In reference to the preceding article on the Catholic Answers Forum thread, I note the thread has now been closed by the moderators. But before it was closed a few more comments worth noting appeared. First, for some reason, a number of folks on the forums have been willing to throw Bill Rutland under the bus, so to speak. One

Someone came into channel asking about Ignatius this morning and in the process dropped the URL to another thread on the Catholic Answers Forums about yours truly, and once again I sit here in utter disbelief at the double standards that people will use without blinking an eye as long as it is in the service of Mother Church (and

OK, I will refrain from any comments. The comic strip says it all. You’ll see. Hat-tip, bird-dog, etc., to centuri0n via the Fluffy One. Don’t ask, it wouldn’t make sense if I explained it anyway.

Well, posting the cross-ex portion on John 6:37 has been such a smash hit that Rich thought it would be fair to provide an equal length portion of the cross-ex where Bill Rutland is asking the questions, so here is a three-minute segment of some of the material from that section of the debate. Enjoy!