Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Quick Rejoinder to Bill Rutland
08/08/2005 - James WhiteBill Rutland has provided a "response" that is again instructive to examine, though briefly, as I have limited time before heading back to Phoenix in a matter of hours.
I would like to address some of James’ comments on my comments. But, before I do, I would like to thank Pat for allowing James to post from this forum so freely. When I was over on Cross Walk, I posted something from their forum on my website and the administrators threatened me with a lawsuit if I did not remove it. Now, to the main reason for this post.
It is sorta hard to avoid the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, behind that is the idea that "Hey, maybe we should have the freedom to say anything we want in this forum and no one should have the right to expose what we say, even when it involves blatant, documentable lies about others, in any other way." Sorta sounds like that is the idea, but let's hope not.
As I stated on this forum Art got his “outrageous falsehoods” from me. I documented my post-debate discussion with James on this forum and I stand by it. If Art said anything that was incorrect it was because I did not express myself accurately, so I wish James would quit pounding Art on this subject.
I simply refer the reader to the unanswered documentation of the lies posted by Sippo (he has never retracted them) and the sad collusion of Rutland with his personal attacks here. I had written:
It would be nice if Mr. Rutland would provide at least a single citation to substantiate his claim that I do not "explore what Catholic(s) mean by the title." How is including chapters reviewing John Paul II's teaching on the subject, Vatican II's teaching on the subject, and Mark Miravalle's teaching on the subject, not doing that very thing?
Why is Mary called Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix? James attempts to tell us but is [sic] approach is somewhat like the three blind men, one who touched an elephants tail, the other its foot and the last its trunk and then described that elephant as a rope, a tree and a serpent. But "dars a whole lotta effelent bitwixted dem three points sir." Now maybe I was a bit too harsh on James, because there is no way, for example, to speak of Mary’s suffering from the Protestant theology of suffering which in the end amounts to “stuff happens.”
Once again--how is this a response? I cite Vatican II; I cite John Paul II; I cite previous papal encyclicals; I cite Miravalle. Where did I misrepresent them? Where did I misunderstand them? When I criticize the work of others, I attempt to show them sufficient respect to at least provide documentation before providing conclusions. Rutland does not seem up to the task. If this is the level of interaction he is putting into his book, well, that does not bode well at all.
In his chapter The Veneration and Worship of Mary of Mary Another Redeemer? James points out that Catholics insist that we do not worship Mary as a god. But, he then goes to the Protestant apologist’s favorite whipping-boy on the subject St. Alphonsus Ligouri. The reason that St. Al is so well liked by Protestant apologists is that his style of writhing [humorous sic] and the time and culture in which he wrote is completely foreign to modern day readers, especially Protestants, so ol’ Al can be easily misrepresented.
OK, then why not document the misrepresentation of him? What is so hard about this? Why do these apologists lack the simple capacity to quote in context and demonstrate error? I quoted Liguori extensively: his words are plain and clear. How did I misrepresent him? This kind of ipse dixit criticism is maddening simply because you can't possibly refute it since there is nothing to refute.
Actually I am in the process of writhing a book examining the arguments of Protestant apologists against the Catholic faith on this issue of the Bible.
I do hope an editor with a spine will say, "Excuse me, but this is not how to engage in meaningful logical argumentation" if the book follows the standards presented thus far by Mr. Rutland, how has yet to provide a single meaningful argument post-debate.
In this book I cite Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism , James White’s The Roman Catholic Controversy and Scripture Alone, Ron Rhodes’ Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics and Dave Hunt’s A Woman Rides the Beast (sorry James). So, if it ever gets published James will has his critique, at least in part.
I.e., "I can't provide any documentation to the conclusions I've already presented, so, just wait till I write my book!"
James then goes on to give us the entire section from his book. I did not, “explain how the shorter citation is allegedly a distortion or misrepresentation,” because I did not think it needed any. It is obvious that James leaves out the most important part of the quote as it pertains to “No Salvation Outside of the Church.” An interesting side note is that Ron Rhodes’ in his book Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics gives the same exact citation and stops at the same exact place (which, by the way is in the middle of a sentance [sic]).
And, of course, given the context I offered, his entire argument collapsed, but, evidently, Mr. Rutland is not able to comprehend the concept of context. Once again we wonder what kind of book is going to come forth from such an incapacity to critique written materials in a meaningful and logical fashion. I had written:
What is deceptive is Bill Rutland ignoring the context in which I placed the citation, which removes the ground of his allegation. It also leaves us, once again, without any examples from him to substantiate those allegations of deception.
Not so Jimmy ... it is the very context which makes the citation so misleading.
If I replied by referring to "Billy" I'd never hear the end of it, but no one will call Rutland on his demeaning reference to me, of course (the "Mother Church Double Standard"). And since I established my context, and Rutland has yet to even refer to it, I can only conclude that the level of the writing is beyond Mr. Rutland's comprehension, and leave it to the reader at that point.
I had written:
In the next installment we will address the comments made by Patty Patrick Bonds and, if there is any benefit to be gained by it, those of Crimson Catholic, Jonathan Prejean.
James please leave Patty out of this, you have dragged her through the mud quite enough. Well, I have gone on long enough and have no doubt supplied James with adequate fodder for his blog.
Of course, once again, ad-hominem without substantiation, the hallmark of Envoy style apologists. Refuting falsehoods and providing factual, unrefuted contexts to Mrs. Bonds' assertions, and pointing out the simple truth that she is not an apologist, is not "dragging her name through the mud." Let me remind the reader that Mr. Rutland did not, to my knowledge, say a word about the outrageous insults of Art Sippo against myself and my parents--neither did Mrs. Bonds. If someone wants to talk about dragging names through the mud, that charge is to be laid squarely at the feet of men like Sippo and Mrs. Bonds herself. Once again, facts are facts, and isn't it odd that only one side can provide in-context quotes, only one side can do more than simply offer their ipse dixit.