A Question for Mr. White?

Mr. White, I would like you to tell us how Roman Theology contradicts the Bible? Please I ask in humility. Let us all fellowship and talk about this with open hearts seeking Truth. You say that Roman thleology contradicts the Holy Scriptures so please tell us how and explain what the early Church, fresh from the Apostles taught and believed. If what you say is to be the Truth, then so be it and Praise the Lord! But if not then we have alot of discussing to do. I’m sure it will be interesting for all of us. Again I ask in humility and not pride or arrogance. I hope you will respond so we can all fellowship.

God give you peace:)

<< Mr. White, I would like you to tell us how Roman Theology contradicts the Bible? >>

White answers:

Hebrews 10:10-14 contradicts the Mass. Not a “re-sacrifice,” nor a “re-presentation.” Both are excluded. Gotcha.

Matthew 26:29; Luke 22:18 contradicts the Eucharist. Jesus will not be partaking of the “transubstantiation” in His Father’s kingdom. Gotcha.

Luke 22:24 contradicts Peter as head. How could the apostles argue about “who is the greatest” when Jesus and everyone already knew that “Peter is the greatest.” Gotcha.

John 6:44 contradicts Roman Catholic salvation. No one comes to me unless the Father draws him, and all those who are drawn will be raised up on the last day, i.e. will be saved. There is no free will. Roman Catholicism teaches all are drawn, but only some are ultimately saved based on their free will to “cooperate with grace.” But grace is irresistable. Gotcha.

2 Timothy 3:17 teaches Scriptures fully equips the believer for every good work, including teaching the bodily assumption of Mary as a doctrine. Now where is that doctrine explicitly taught in Scripture and where is that doctrine taught in the first 300 years of Christianity. Gotcha.

Matthew 11:25 teaches Jesus hid his teachings from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. So why in the world do you require my Ph.D. to be from an accredited university? :smiley: GOTCHA.

Phil P

Possibly I can pose a specific question to start off.

James White has said many times that, “Sola Scriptura refers to the normative condition of the Church.” He clarifies by saying that when the Apostles were around, this was not a normal condition of the Church, therefore, Sola Scriptura begins in the era immediately following the Apostles, and this is why the Apostles did not practice Sola Scriptura. I’m sure I am butchering his eloquent explanation of it, but that seems to be about the jist of it.

Is that a direct statement that Sola Scriptura is not apostolic in nature? Would this mean that for Sola Scriptura to be true, that an Apostle had to teach it just before death, but not significantly prior to that, as that would negate the phrase “normative condition of the church?” Or is the understanding that the Apostles taught it the whole time, but only instructed its enforcement after their death. If so, shouldn’t this be clearly taught in the Bible, especially due to the importance of it? I don’t believe 2 Tim 3:16-17 is very clear at all on the matter.

James says all traditions must be subserviated to Scripture, but this is not what Paul teaches in 2 Thess. Jesus condemns traditions that nullify the word of God because they are of men…His condemnations are not the result of* not* subserviating them to Scripture.

And then of course is the problem that Scripture doesn’t tell us what Scripture is. I have read the book Scripture Alone, and understand the distinction you made between canon1 and canon2, but that doesn’t solve it.

You openly said in the last debate with Matatics on Sola Scriptura that you had fallible knowledge of the infallible Scriptures.

Now, to use your comments about the Catholic Church, something is only as infallible as the fallible decision that led you there. Something along those lines. How does this relate to your fallible knowledge of the infallible Scriptures?

Any comments are appreciated. I would love a clarification on this by James.

Peace,
Michael

The funny part about his web page is that it has the word “ministries” in it. The truth is its mostly half baked anti-C rebuttals and not much ministering. If Catholics didnt talk to him his store would shut down, he would have nothing to talk about and nothing to sell. I went online to find a site that teaches “reformed” theology, I went to his page and I cant find much. Its typical protestant apologetics, they dont know their own position because they all disagree, but they have no problem tearing down others, especially Catholics, that is how they define “apologetics”.

I looked around and cant find any clear teachings on what they believe. I looked on their statement of faith and the first thing they believe in is the Bible and God second…that should say something right there. I want to find a site that explains to me what Calvinism is each point of the tulip at a time with Scriptural and Historical references. If you look on Catholic Answers they lay out what Catholics believe and why, you dont see anything close to that on his site.

The bottom line for me is that his site shouldnt use the word “ministries” because it doesnt even teach the basics to the average joe. On the flip side he rants and raves in his blog about this and that to stir up a crowd without any real progress in ministry. From what I see on the aom page his job is to run a store and if you want to learn about reformed stuff you have to buy his book. Its pretty easy to see though these guys, they list “bookstore” before “apologetics” on the navigation bar.
the page is aomin.org

<< Any comments are appreciated. I would love a clarification on this by James. >>

There is at least one “White protege” that used to regularly post that can probably answer, CoachMcGuirk something.

I don’t get any of it, gets too philosophical for me. This “fallible decision” stuff. Seems to confuse “certainty” with “infallibility” as Cardinal Newman pointed out long ago.

"It is very common, doubtless, especially in religious controversy, to confuse infallibility with certitude, and to argue that, since we have not the one, we have not the other, for that no one can claim to be certain on any point, who is not infallible about all; but the two words stand for things quite distinct from each other. For example, I remember for certain what I did yesterday, but still my memory is not infallible; I am quite certain that two and two make four, but I often make mistakes in long addition sums. I have no doubt whatever that John or Richard is my true friend, but I have before now trusted those who failed me, and I may do so again before I die.

“A certitude is directed to this or that particular proposition, it is not a faculty or gift, but a disposition of mind relative to the definite case which is before me. Infallibility, on the contrary, is just that which certitude is not; it is a faculty or gift, and relates, not to some one truth in particular, but to all possible propositions in a given subject-matter. We ought, in strict propriety, to speak not of infallible acts, but of acts of infallibility…I am quite certain that Victoria is our Sovereign, and not her father, the late Duke of Kent, without laying any claim to the gift of infallibility…I may be certain that the Church is infallible, while I am myself a fallible mortal; otherwise, I cannot be certain that the Supreme Being is infallible, until I am infallible myself…It is wonderful that a clearheaded man, like Chillingworth, sees this as little as the run of everyday objectors to the Catholic Religion…” (John Henry Newman, Grammar of Assent [1903], 224ff)

And James White clearly did teach in his books (Answers To Catholic Claims, and RC Controversy) and a couple of debates that Sola Scriptura is taught (or at least implied) in 2 Tim 3:15-17 while at the same time admitting (both in print and a later debate) that sola scriptura is not true and is not valid “during times of inscripturation” while Jesus or His apostles were still alive. So which is it? Sola Scriptura (definition: the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith) suddenly “becomes true” once the last apostle dies, is that it? Everyone suddenly “forgets” all the apostles teachings except what was left in writing, and those writings are Reformed Baptist theology?

I don’t really need a clarification, I know it doesn’t make any sense. Plus he’s Baptist for crying out loud, there is no baptist theology in any of the Fathers. Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran theology maybe, but Baptist, come on. How much study of the early Church does it take to realize that? A first read of JND Kelly Early Christian Doctrines does the trick. :yawn:

Phil P

I was hoping Mr. White would come on this thread so we could actualy fellowship with him. Humbly seeking Truth with one another.

JWB << I was hoping Mr. White would come on this thread >>

Not gonna happen, although he has gone on other Protestant boards in the past (Julie Staples comes to mind, no relation to Tim Staples) :smiley:

But he might if we provoke him enough :whacky:

Phil P

Wow Phil, who was JW debating?

[quote=J.W.B.]I was hoping Mr. White would come on this thread so we could actualy fellowship with him. Humbly seeking Truth with one another.
[/quote]

Although he will issue requests for us to call into his radio show-a venue where he has control, he will probably not come on this forum. If he did, and apparently he reads these threads, then I seriously doubt that he would use his own name. I have noticed that the articles that are posted on his website have led to a few of his supporters asking questions on this site. I like to look at that as a positive occurance-even though some of them don’t seem to want to actually read the response to their questions.

[quote=deb1]Wow Phil, who was JW debating?
[/quote]

Gerry Matatics in 1997

[quote=michaelgazin]Gerry Matatics in 1997
[/quote]

Any idea how/were I can watch this? Maybe we could have a Corpus Christi “viewing” of the debates… :thumbsup:

RyanL

RyanL << Any idea how/were I can watch this? Maybe we could have a Corpus Christi “viewing” of the debates… >>

I believe the audio of that debate is still available online at StraitGate…and the video from Alpha/Omega of course.

Phil P

[quote=Catholic Dude]The funny part about his web page is that it has the word “ministries” in it. The truth is its mostly half baked anti-C rebuttals and not much ministering.
[/quote]

The funny part about your continued comments about the quality and character of James White’s ministry is that you consistently refuse to call in to his show and interact with him 1-877-753-3341.
Also, there’s a good deal more to White’s page than material on Catholocism (also deals with General Apologetics, KJV onlyism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the LDS, and anti-Reformed theology).

If Catholics didnt talk to him his store would shut down, he would have nothing to talk about and nothing to sell.

Incorrect, even at your least charitable you would have to admit that he could still talk about and “sell” materials on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, KJVonlyites, LDS, and Arminians. Also, if you want to keep accusing him of just being in it for the money maybe you should speak with him about it (per Matt 18). Again, that number is 1-877-753-3341.

I went online to find a site that teaches “reformed” theology, I went to his page and I cant find much. Its typical protestant apologetics, they dont know their own position because they all disagree, but they have no problem tearing down others, especially Catholics, that is how they define “apologetics”.

The site does have a good deal of information on Reformed theology (I don’t know why you’ve put “reformed” in scare quotes). However, and I may be mistaken, I believe that the website is primarily supplemental to White’s actual ministry which involves debating and writing. I assure you, White knows his own position. Check out The Potter’s Freedom or Debating Calvinism for a positive presentation of Calvinism.

I looked around and cant find any clear teachings on what they believe. I looked on their statement of faith and the first thing they believe in is the Bible and God second…that should say something right there.

The Statement of faith is what they believe. A fuller statement is the London Baptist Confession available here prbc.org/Confession.htm
Bible comes first in statements of faith because we LEARN ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE FROM THE BIBLE. This doesn’t mean that the Bible is more important than God himself.

I want to find a site that explains to me what Calvinism is each point of the tulip at a time with Scriptural and Historical references.

Try www.monergism.com
although, I don’t know about the historical references. This isn’t a matter of big concern for Reformed folks. The Scriptures are sufficient.

If you look on Catholic Answers they lay out what Catholics believe and why, you dont see anything close to that on his site.

Argument=we do it this way, therefore all other ways of doing it are wrong.

The bottom line for me is that his site shouldnt use the word “ministries” because it doesnt even teach the basics to the average joe. On the flip side he rants and raves in his blog about this and that to stir up a crowd without any real progress in ministry. From what I see on the aom page his job is to run a store and if you want to learn about reformed stuff you have to buy his book. Its pretty easy to see though these guys, they list “bookstore” before “apologetics” on the navigation bar.
the page is aomin.org

Well, Catholic Dude, as someone who has benefited from this ministry for the last three years or so, I would disagree. If you want to keep talking about James White, I’d recommend that you talk to him first. This is the biblical command.
The number is 1-877-753-3341.
Maybe you can make some website suggestions.

deb << Wow Phil, who was JW debating? >>

Yeah, it was James White third debate with Gerry Matatics on sola scriptura. First one 1990 (not available), second one 1992 (White gets the edge), third one 1997 (Matatics gets the edge).

That clip was the turning point in that debate for me. I have all his debates.

Matatics: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura?
White: NO.

He has also admitted as much in a reply to Steve Ray the same year (1997) on the Bereans and sola scriptura. This is quoted by Bob Sungenis in his Not By Scripture Alone which is where I discovered it:

“…the doctrine [of sola scriptura] speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? …You will never find anyone saying, ‘During times of enscripturation – that is, when new revelation was being given – sola scriptura was operational.’ Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is ‘sufficient.’ It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, ‘See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!’ Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?” (James White on Bereans and sola scriptura in response to Steve Ray).

Of course White admits sola scriptura is still true since the Catholic Church can’t produce “another infallible rule of faith.” At least that’s the logic he uses. But of course demonstrating Scripture is “infallible” is a problem in the first place. It all comes down to faith, whether Scripture or Church being infallible, its not something that can be logically “proved.” But the historical evidence clearly is on the Catholic side.

Phil P

[quote=PhilVaz]But of course demonstrating Scripture is “infallible” is a problem in the first place.
[/quote]

And proving it is inspired is next to impossible without an infallible Church.

It is hard enough to prove its infallibility, a whole other thing to prove its inspiration. I would love to hear White on that one as well.

[quote=PhilVaz]JWB << I was hoping Mr. White would come on this thread >>

Not gonna happen, although he has gone on other Protestant boards in the past (Julie Staples comes to mind, no relation to Tim Staples) :smiley:

But he might if we provoke him enough :whacky:

Phil P
[/quote]

He used to post a bit over at Steve Ray’s site. I even tangled with him a bit. It was fun. He wouldn’t take a whole lot of contradiction of his ideas before he would start making comments about my character, like he so commonly does about the character of those he debates. His exegesis you know is rather infallible, though he won’t admit he has that charism.

thess << He used to post a bit over at Steve Ray’s site. I even tangled with him a bit. It was fun. >>

Oh yeah I remember that. The old board where all the messages went on one page. Good old Steve Ray board.

If you want to see some “vintage” James White from 1995, where he used to moderate (for a short time) the OpenBible FidoNet BBS board, where I got started in online apologetics, before I had a real computer, I was DOS only and no Internet :D, see these notes from a Raymond Cote responding to him on “latria” “dulia” and the saints. 10 years ago, not too much changed. He’s quoted as JW>

FidoNet discussion on the saints with James White

Phil P

[quote=PhilVaz]thess << He used to post a bit over at Steve Ray’s site. I even tangled with him a bit. It was fun. >>

Oh yeah I remember that. The old board where all the messages went on one page. Good old Steve Ray board.

If you want to see some “vintage” James White from 1995, where he used to moderate (for a short time) the OpenBible FidoNet BBS board, where I got started in online apologetics, before I had a real computer, I was DOS only and no Internet :D, see these notes from a Raymond Cote responding to him on “latria” “dulia” and the saints. 10 years ago, not too much changed. He’s quoted as JW>

FidoNet discussion on the saints with James White

Phil P
[/quote]

Funny. You wouldn’t even have to put JW on it and I could tell. That’s vintage JW rhetoric all right. :D. You’ve been doing this since DOS?:bowdown: :nerd:

SEMPEREFORMANDA-

The funny part about your continued comments about the quality and character of James White’s ministry is that you consistently refuse to call in to his show and interact with him 1-877-753-3341.
Also, there’s a good deal more to White’s page than material on Catholocism (also deals with General Apologetics, KJV onlyism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the LDS, and anti-Reformed theology).

If he wants to talk he can come here or better yet he should set up his own AOForums or something.
In therms of his debating style, I have seen his tactics, hes not there to debate, hes there to exploit popular apologists and smear their name.
About the “good deal more” part, I have looked through it. If you honestly think there is more to that site than anti-C ranting your wrong. The KJV section is a joke. The JW and LDS are both considered non-Christian already and there is tons out there about them. But the Catholic section is by far the biggest, yet it has the least “apologetics” in it. Its moslty smearing and making himself look good.

Incorrect, even at your least charitable you would have to admit that he could still talk about and “sell” materials on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, KJVonlyites, LDS, and Arminians. Also, if you want to keep accusing him of just being in it for the money maybe you should speak with him about it (per Matt 18). Again, that number is 1-877-753-3341.

What are you one of his spies or something? He can come here, even under a screen name and show us what he’s got. He’s the wuss here. If you look on his blog he thrives on anti-C revelations he has during his bowl of cheerios in the morning. If you glance through his weekly rants you will see they all depend on something Catholic or else he would have nothing to write about.

The site does have a good deal of information on Reformed theology (I don’t know why you’ve put “reformed” in scare quotes). However, and I may be mistaken, I believe that the website is primarily supplemental to White’s actual ministry which involves debating and writing. I assure you, White knows his own position. Check out The Potter’s Freedom or Debating Calvinism for a positive presentation of Calvinism.

I put reformed in quotes because if you look around there is no one definintion of “reformed”, in fact there are contradictory views out there.
I went to look at how much those books were for and was stopped dead. I saw these and I said what a scam. http://aomin.org/Images%20and%20Sounds/jpeg/Bandsml.jpghey only $5 dollars each, yea!

The Statement of faith is what they believe. A fuller statement is the London Baptist Confession available here prbc.org/Confession.htm
Bible comes first in statements of faith because we LEARN ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE FROM THE BIBLE. This doesn’t mean that the Bible is more important than God himself.

The Bible should never come before God. I have not read that Confession yet but Im sure I could find some problems with it.

Try www.monergism.com
although, I don’t know about the historical references. This isn’t a matter of big concern for Reformed folks. The Scriptures are sufficient.

Thats the kind of stuff that I dont understand. That place you linked to has tons of historical documents, the question I have for Reformed folks is when did they feel they could start ignoring Councils? All of the sudden they werent binding on them.

Argument=we do it this way, therefore all other ways of doing it are wrong.

Not really. There is no clear page of what they believe with Scriptural citations. In short it shouldnt use the word “ministries”.

Well, Catholic Dude, as someone who has benefited from this ministry for the last three years or so, I would disagree. If you want to keep talking about James White, I’d recommend that you talk to him first. This is the biblical command.
The number is 1-877-753-3341.
Maybe you can make some website suggestions.

Its fine if you disagree. Would you mind telling me a few things you learned from him that another reformed site couldnt tell you?
The only suggestion I would give him for his page is to put a link in a large red font at the top of his page lining to these forums. Id like to see how many go back to him for answers after they got the chance to see some real Scriptural and Historical proof for the Catholic side.

he funny part about your continued comments about the quality and character of James White’s ministry is that you consistently refuse to call in to his show and interact with him 1-877-753-3341.

Because White would not allow us to go on the show, pretty much like he cowardly refused to allow Ben Douglass to get on the show. :rolleyes:
The people that are more qualified to call in are not allowed…why is that??

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.