Does James White have something to say?


#1

Then why can’t he say it to a person’s face? Why would he hide behind a microphone when he could actually address people directly? He takes shots at everyone on his blog, which doesn’t allow comments, and when people call him out in public on their own blogs, he whines on his own blog (again with no comments allowed) rather than making use of the comment function on theirs.

Here’s the quote from “Bishop” White on AOMin.org:

I was all set up to review some pretty sad examples of RC apologetics from the Catholic Answers Forums, but due to circumstances beyond my control, we will have to either wait till Tuesday, or, re-schedule for tomorrow. I’ll post an announcement if we reschedule for Friday. Sorry!

He’ll boast all day about how much conviction he has in his position, but when somebody actually throws down the gauntlet, he never has enough time to take the challenge (although somehow he always seems to have enough time to cry on his blog about it). The posters are RIGHT HERE. The comboxes on the blogs of people he is critiquing are open to the public. Why does he constantly refuse to attack statements where those statements are made?

I’m just not buying that he’s a very busy man who doesn’t have time to answer questions. Here’s an idea: if you don’t have time to dialogue with somebody in a forum where they can easily answer you, don’t take shots at them. If someone is so far beneath you that they don’t deserve an honest interaction, don’t address their statements. I don’t know where White grew up, but here in Texas, you just don’t say something about a man behind his back. You say it to his face where you’ll have to answer for what you say. And don’t even get me started on the “You can call into the Dividing Line” nonsense. If somebody says something here, he shouldn’t have to inconvenience himself by going to another forum entirely when there’s already a perfectly good opportunity for public discussion.

Maybe I’m just a dumb Southerner, but it works on my last nerve that White will never challenge a statement in the forum where the statement was made, even though he has every opportunity to do so. To me, that’s just yellow-bellied.


#2

Everyone would be much better off it they put White in the same category as the Raelians–fringe elements who don’t have anything to say that is worth expending mental energy contemplating.

Scott


#3

Everyone would be much better off it they put White in the same category as the Raelians–fringe elements who don’t have anything to say that is worth expending mental energy contemplating.

On the strength of his arguments, I’d agree with you. This is just general incivility and boorish behavior, and I have far less tolerance for rudeness than incompetence. Incompetence is to some extent excusable by ignorance, but even the most simple individual can manage common courtesy.


#4

the thing i’ve noticed (as i’m sure many others have also) is that james white is only condescending when talking about catholics among other anti-catholics (much like david duke would attack african americans around his kkk cronies or a democrat will be merciless to republicans around other democrats and vice-versa). while this does not condone the comments, it does give us insight into the situation. there are many catholics who are just as uncharitable in these forums to anti-catholics (and plain old protestants for that matter). james white is the only credible anti-catholic out there. he has well thought out arguments and will go so far as to address true roman catholic teachings. i think he knows the church very well (as opposed to jack chick or boettner or rivera and the like) but simply and profoundly disagrees with it. i am not trying to defend his beliefs but i think the best way to reach some one is to look at the argument from their side for a moment and see where they might have a legitimate gripe (or misunderstanding) and where they are completely off base. a good way into getting insight into mr. white would be to read his sister’s conversion to the catholic faith. mr. white was raised vehemently anti-catholic and the fact that he will dialogue with catholics in debates shows the strides he has taken in his own life. i believe he truly thinks catholics are mistaken and not experiencing Christ the way they are supposed to and he has a deep concern over that (as opposed to others who just like to condemn catholics to hell). as misguided and mistaken as he is, i believe james white has good motives and i think that is a good starting place with him. also, none of us are intelligent enough to take him on one-on-one. he is a full time “apologist” whereas most of us are spare-time apologists. let’s leave james white to jimmy akin, karl keating, scott hahn, tim staples, stephen ray, rosalind moss, mitch pacwa, john corapi, and the other outstanding catholic apologists as the rest of us would get our butts kicked (most likely).


#5

who the frick is james white?


#6

Brothers and sisters in Christ and in His mother, Mary.

Here’s a link I found in Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong’s website entitled “James White’s ‘Doctorate’ Degree: Is it Legitimate? (vs. James White and Mark Bainter).” Click here to see where the link goes to:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_socrates58_archive.html#109540317175237677

Shalom, amen.


#7

[quote=preyoflove]Brothers and sisters in Christ and in His mother, Mary.

Here’s a link I found in Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong’s website entitled “James White’s ‘Doctorate’ Degree: Is it Legitimate? (vs. James White and Mark Bainter).” Click here to see where the link goes to:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_socrates58_archive.html#109540317175237677

Shalom, amen.
[/quote]

i think it is foolish to put this on a website. even if he didn’t earn the doctorate from an accredited institution, he earned one from an institution which his denomination adheres to. many places do not accept doctorates from certain catholic seminaries (thus making some priests doctorates useless in some circles yet we all accept them wholeheartedly as we should). james white is considered one of the only legitimate and credible anti-catholics out there and to try to use this information (which has no bearing on his arguments seeing as he is not claiming to be an ex-priest and he is not grossly misrepresenting the church (yes, he has some misguided views on many catholic beliefs, but his arguments are worthy of response unlike jack chick or alberto rivera and other such ilk). even if he didn’t go to school somewhere we would aknowledge, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t respond to his arguments in a charitable way (even though he does not seem charitable sometimes, if we have the fullness of the truth we must show that in out actions and responses). bottom line is, who cares if he doesn’t have a doctorate, there have been many very intelligent people who didn’t have doctorates and we must respect his arguments (and willingness to debate).


#8

james white is the only credible anti-catholic out there. he has well thought out arguments and will go so far as to address true roman catholic teachings.

It’s not even remotely true that White is the only credible anti-Catholic out there. In fact, there are many Protestants out there who believe that the Catholic Church is terribly misguided who are both more respectful and more respected than White. Sproul, Piper, Packer, and many others are all more widely published and better regarded. I have no problem with that kind of sincere, respectful disagreement. White’s problem is exactly that he does NOT address true Catholic teachings. He attacks caricatures of other people’s position, and when he is called on it, he doesn’t respond. He routinely misrepresents Catholic positions, not to mention the positions of other Protestants who disagree with him. I can’t tell you whether it’s deliberate lying or simple ignorance about the position (although I suspect the latter), but either way, there is no way that White could be objectively considered to be addressing his opponent’s positions.


#9

General Charity Warning


#10

I am no James White fan but I must admit the truth wherever the truth is. James does talk to people face to face often. You may not ‘see’ it or know when he does it but I know for a fact that he often did it in the past.


#11

[quote=Administrator]General Charity Warning
[/quote]

General Charity? Wasn’t she in the Justice League?

:smiley:

– Mark L. Chance.

P.S. - Sorry, but I just couldn’t help myself. I’ll go put myself in time out.


#12

You may not ‘see’ it or know when he does it but I know for a fact that he often did it in the past.

This is strictly a matter of his current behavior on the Internet, and specifically, his willingness to attack people on his blog and/or Internet broadcast rather than respond to statements in the forum where they were made when he has an opportunity to do so. This behavior is documented fact (see, e.g., Dave Armstrong’s blog, the numerous Reformed Catholic blogs, the now-removed post I linked above regarding this forum). His past pre-blog habits are by and large irrelevant to the present discussion, since I didn’t intend to attack his character, but his pattern of behavior.

Obviously, I haven’t made my intent sufficiently clear. I am not making any uncharitable inferences about his character; indeed, I have no personal knowledge of the man whatsoever. This is not a “Look how bad a person he is” thread. By all accounts, he is a truly devoted husband, father, pastor, and Christian. But being a good person does not excuse bad behavior (conversely, neither does an accusation of bad behavior entail an attack on someone’s character). What I have yet to see from anyone is a statement that this behavior is justifiable. In confronting someone’s opinion, how can it ever be justifiable to avoid an opportunity to confront the person directly?

I’m amenable to correction on this subject, but I don’t see where anyone has even addressed the point yet.


#13

jeffreed << who the frick is james white? >>

Husband of Ellen G. White. No big whoop. Died 100 years ago. :smiley:

Phil P


#14

Malachi << I am no James White fan but I must admit the truth wherever the truth is. James does talk to people face to face often. >>

Yeah, to defend James, he’s probably tired. He’s been on the Internet probably longer than any of you. Used to go head-to-head with Joe Gallegos all the time on the old CIN boards / BBS. And he’ll occasionally go into hostile boards. Here he would be overwhelmed quickly, and he knows that, but he’s got his capable defenders who copy his arguments verbatim (Coach McGuirk comes to mind).

He’s got his little site and ministry, and we Catholic apologists got our thousands of amateur sites to counter his. :stuck_out_tongue:

Phil P


#15

[quote=JPrejean]. . . it works on my last nerve that White will never challenge a statement in the forum where the statement was made, even though he has every opportunity to do so. To me, that’s just yellow-bellied.
[/quote]

I’ve listened to a few of his debates with Catholics. The impression I’m left with is that he seeks to win. That is, he strives to win arguments, not uncover universal truths. As such, he seeks forums that favor his winning. His arguments are designed to score points, even though he (hopefully) knows the arguments are fallacious. He is not interested in finding truth per se, but rather in scoring debating points. If that works for him, so be it, but I think he has confused winning with being right. It doesn’t follow, though. And as such, he’s hardy worth the effort. I surmise that most others ignore him because the interaction is always contentious. Don’t go through him, go around him.


#16

[quote=PhilVaz]Malachi << I am no James White fan but I must admit the truth wherever the truth is. James does talk to people face to face often. >>

Yeah, to defend James, he’s probably tired. He’s been on the Internet probably longer than any of you. Used to go head-to-head with Joe Gallegos all the time on the old CIN boards / BBS. And he’ll occasionally go into hostile boards. Here he would be overwhelmed quickly, and he knows that, but he’s got his capable defenders who copy his arguments verbatim (Coach McGuirk comes to mind).

He’s got his little site and ministry, and we Catholic apologists got our thousands of amateur sites to counter his. :stuck_out_tongue:

Phil P
[/quote]

Phil, I like your site. I like the debates.


#17

On Whites site.

Our re-scheduled DL today got some folks talking over on the Catholic Answers Forums. Just a note to the guy who thinks I should spend my time posting over there: even if that was a possibility (it isn’t: look at this just to see the next month and a half), for some reason I can’t log in anymore; repeated requests for my password have been ignored, and two attempts to register using valid e-mail addresses have produced no results. Evidently, I’m persona-non-grata anyway. Be that as it may, JPrejean opined, “Then why can’t he say it to a person’s face? Why would he hide behind a microphone when he could actually address people directly?” You mean like in my debates? Or like folks on the CA Forums accuse me of every kind of sinful attitude short of pulling the wings off of butterflies without the slightest bit of personal knowledge of me? In case you hadn’t noticed, when I do the Dividing Line we have this thing called a toll-free phone number (877-753-3341). Feel free to call in! This person continues, “he whines on his own blog (again with no comments allowed) rather than making use of the comment function on theirs.” Ah, I see. I didn’t read the “how to engage in ad-hominem on blogs” rules. No, we are low-tech, and even when we go high-tech (yeah, RSS and all, it’s coming) my blog does not exist to create opportunities for endlessly wasting my time replying to this kind of stuff. Put up your own blog and see if folks will take the time to read it. But it is truly amazing that given how available I make myself in general (how many other folks do something like the DL and take calls on a regular basis?) that this kind of complaint could be made. And it is ironic, in light of the number of RC apologists I have debated since 1990, and how many others will not take up my challenge, that this writer can add, “He’ll boast all day about how much conviction he has in his position, but when somebody actually throws down the gauntlet, he never has enough time to take the challenge (although somehow he always seems to have enough time to cry on his blog about it).” And then, “Maybe I’m just a dumb Southerner, but it works on my last nerve that White will never challenge a statement in the forum where the statement was made, even though he has every opportunity to do so. To me, that’s just yellow-bellied.” It is hard to take that kind of rhetoric seriously, but having just returned from Texas, I’d like to invite this brave Texan to have the courage of his convictions and give me a ring. The next Dividing Line is Tuesday, 1pm central time, and the number is 877-753-3341. And as they say down in Texas, bring your six-shooter, and don’t load it with blanks.
Then again, maybe Scott Waddell will call in and defend this piece of brilliance, also posted in that thread:
Everyone would be much better off it they put White in the same category as the Raelians–fringe elements who don’t have anything to say that is worth expending mental energy contemplating.

Anyone want to take bets on whether ol’ Scott could provide the first bit of meaningful interaction with, say, three or four chapters of The* God Who Justifies?* Better bet…that he has ever read anything I’ve written?
Oh, speaking of having been in Texas, there was a pickup truck in the parking lot (like that’s unusual in Texas) that had this great bumper sticker on it. It said, “Yanks 1, Rebels 0, Half-time.” Only in Texas! Well, and Georgia and Virginia and…


#18

Without the catholic church James White doesn’t have a job.

Supposedly he’s a minister of some sort but he makes most of his money by selling anti-catholic books and tapes and debating catholic subject matter. That must be weird to have your livelyhood depend on the catholic church.


#19

for some reason I can’t log in anymore; repeated requests for my password have been ignored, and two attempts to register using valid e-mail addresses have produced no results.

If he made the effort and couldn’t, then he was at the very least trying to address the criticism and defend against it in good faith. That is all I ever wanted to see. Trying in this instance is a sign of good faith.

And as a matter of good faith on my part, I will answer in kind:

You mean like in my debates? Or like folks on the CA Forums accuse me of every kind of sinful attitude short of pulling the wings off of butterflies without the slightest bit of personal knowledge of me?

In order, no, not like in your debates, and yes, exactly. With regard to the former, if the argument merits a direct, personal response, then I can’t understand not having the courtesy to respond in similar form. Arguments that are truly beneath your notice shouldn’t need a response. With regard to the latter, I think it’s absolute nonsense. However, the issue is more serious with someone who is a professional apologist.

In case you hadn’t noticed, when I do the Dividing Line we have this thing called a toll-free phone number (877-753-3341). Feel free to call in!

It is hard to take that kind of rhetoric seriously, but having just returned from Texas, I’d like to invite this brave Texan to have the courage of his convictions and give me a ring. The next Dividing Line is Tuesday, 1pm central time, and the number is 877-753-3341. And as they say down in Texas, bring your six-shooter, and don’t load it with blanks.

That’s a little tougher. I can write posts in bits throughout the day, while I’d actually have to block off time to be able to call in without getting interrupted. That’s a pretty good time, what with being around lunch and all, so I can probably swing it. As I said above, since you actually were willing to make the effort to put yourself out here for public critique on this forum, then I have little remaining basis for complaint, so it may be a short conversation.

A couple of concluding bits:

No, we are low-tech, and even when we go high-tech (yeah, RSS and all, it’s coming) my blog does not exist to create opportunities for endlessly wasting my time replying to this kind of stuff. Put up your own blog and see if folks will take the time to read it.

I don’t put up my own blog, because I know I don’t have time to do it justice. I am in no way suggesting that you waste time replying to spurious arguments. If they are so unconvincing, they won’t merit a response. My point is, rather, that if you are going to take the time to read someone’s blog and comment on it, then you should at the very least also avail yourself of the comment feature, even if it’s only to say “I’ve replied to this blog post at my web site here.” It takes hardly any time, and it creates instant accountability.

And it is ironic, in light of the number of RC apologists I have debated since 1990, and how many others will not take up my challenge, that this writer can add, “He’ll boast all day about how much conviction he has in his position, but when somebody actually throws down the gauntlet, he never has enough time to take the challenge (although somehow he always seems to have enough time to cry on his blog about it).”

My point is that those people have never held them out as being available for public, oral debates. I don’t see where they are even obliged to take up such challenges, since that forum isn’t particularly conducive toward accomplishing anything useful (at least IMHO). But they are presumably accepting arguments in writing, and if one is going to reply in writing, one ought to at least return the courtesy of plainly and openly inviting responses.


#20

Interesting discussion on White, he complains on his 10/1/2004 Dividing Line that I still don’t understand the “sola scriptura is not valid during times of revelation” concept. Well he used to believe apparently Jesus and His apostles taught sola scriptura, or at least that SS is a “biblical teaching” since he used to argue from 2 Tim 3:15-17 and other texts for SS. His 1990 book Answers to Catholic Claims, his 1993 debate with Pat Madrid, and his 1996 book The RC Controversy all argued you could prove sola scriptura from 2 Tim 3:15-17.

It turns out (circa 1997 or so) that 2 Tim 3:15-17 does not teach SS since SS is not a valid concept during times of relevation. And again, people can watch this if they can figure out the “magic word” :smiley: As a sound bite, it is quite devastating. :cool:

Here James White Tell the Truth About Sola Scriptura

Phil P


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.