Archive for category: Roman Catholicism

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 [email protected], 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!

   I thought I’d post a few shots from the video of the debate. Here is a side-by-side shot of the cross-examination period. And here is a humorous point in Rutland’s closing where he began by talking about how I am the premiere Catholic apologist today…and I was like, “Uh, wha?” And people started to snicker, and he stopped and looked

As per a note on his website dated today, Dr. Sippo has declined to debate any of the topics offered to him, insisting we only debate his “grudge match,” and, of course, accusing me of “backing down” for seeking to engage him on all sorts of other Roman Catholic teachings. I’m sure his followers will continue to adore him for

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!      Well, maybe that is overstating it. James wants to do another topic. He suggests Purgatory. Unfortunately, that is poor debate topic and it does not get to the heart

Two items about Dr. Sippo’s debate challenge: 1) I do not believe he will allow for meaningful cross-examination, which has worked so well with the likes of Mitch Pacwa and Patrick Madrid and Gary Michuta and…well, you get the idea. I believe he knows he could not survive in such a context and hence will bluster about having only a

I flew by Steve Ray’s site and noted something odd. There is a sorta random quote generator, “Quote of the Moment,” and the one I saw was this: If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was

This just appeared on the Envoy forums: Hi Gang, I am getting a bit tired of James’ hysterics. If he wants to keep going postal about our debate, well let him. I have another debate in November that I must prepare for. When my kids were young and we put them to sleep they would cry in protest. We found

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

There are times when you start to get worried that someone is going to become suspicious that you are actually paying these folks to act the way they do. I just arrived home from Newark to find the Rutland/Sippo topic not only continuing, but getting even farther off into flights of fancy. Yes, I know, at some point it will

Well, you have to give him some credit. Mr. Rutland did not wait a few months to make his views known, as some in the past have done, but chose to comment on the debate and to go ad-hominem within a few days, joining, it seems, the rest of the cyber-RC apologetics community in throwing sufficient dust in the air

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

I was finishing up a few items on this “down day” after the debate (I am finally getting the hang of this: never schedule anything for the day after a debate—why did it take me 15 years to figure that out?) and getting ready to pack up and head down to New Jersey (Please, Lord, if you could, and I

Lord willing, as you read this, I am sleeping away. But before I hit the hay at 3am eastern time, I just wanted to report briefly on the Great Debate X. I was tremendously happy with the results of the debate, both in terms of turnout and as far as the debate itself was concerned. I had hoped the gospel