James White calls Called to Communion to the carpet on the Assumption of Mary

Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Debate Challenge for “Called to Communion” Team

***Dr. James White has offered a debate challenge to the Roman communion group at the “Called to Communion” blog **(mp3, you can start around 6 minutes, if you just want to hear the challenge in context).

I am laying out an open challenge to any of the people at Called to Confusion: 2013 - let’s set up a debate. I’ll take on ten of you at once, if you’d like. I don’t care. If you want to roll through the whole group, I don’t care. 1, 2, 3, 10, doesn’t matter. You simply defend the following words, ok? You defend these words:

… a truth which is founded on the Sacred Scriptures, has been fixed deeply in the minds of the faithful in Christ, has been approved by ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times, is quite in harmony with other revealed truths, and has been splendidly explained and declared by the zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the theologians."
(full text at #2332)

To what do we refer? Those are words from the definition of the bodily assumption of Mary, which actually began:

Since, then, the universal Church, in which the Spirit of Truth flourishes, who infallibly directs it to achieve a knowledge of revealed truths, has through the course of the ages repeatedly manifested its own faith; and since the bishops of the whole world with almost unanimous consent request that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven be defined as a dogma of the divine and Catholic faith
and then you have that following description. So will you defend the idea that the bodily assumption of Mary is a truth which is founded on the sacred scriptures? Secondly, that it has been approved by ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times? So, will you defend the idea that the bodily assumption of Mary is founded on the Sacred Scriptures and was a part of the teaching of the ancient church in the earliest times? Now, I know factually beyond any doubt that that is a lie. It is untrue. There is not any reason on this planet to believe that, other than you have already accepted the authority claims of the bishop of Rome. Period. End of discussion.

I would second Dr. White’s challenge and his comments. I did a debate with William Albrecht on the Assumption of Mary, and in the course of the debate, it became readily apparent just how frail the Scriptural and patristic argument for Rome’s position is (link to mp3). So, if any of Rome’s apologists, either from CtC or elsewhere would prefer to Skype debate me, I’m willing to offer the same challenge*.


James White is “appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3) Are there any scholars from “the one true church that Jesus established” who will step up to James challenge?

:shrug:I recommend that we debate a couple of other areas first.

If you want to get your bible out and debate, let’s first have a debate on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the convanental sign that Christ gave us. I’d like to see you show all us Catholics (and many non Catholics as well, even Luther believed in the real presence although in an altered way) where, how and why in the bible Jesus was speaking figuratively.

Second, regarding truth founded on scripture, that’s not biblical either. Show us where! "the (Catholic) church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Timothy 3:15.

Last night I listened to a clip of Patrick Madrid taking apart James White on solo scriptura, admitting no where in the bible does the bible teach solo scriptura. Now that’s a real problem in any debate that you will ever have going forward.

Catholics base the Assumption of Mary on the Biblical passages that refer to Assumption of others. These include: Gn 5:24(Heb 11:5) Enoch was taken; 2Kg 2:11 Elijah assumed into heaven; Mt 27:52 Many saint who had fallen asleep were raised; 1 Thess 4:17 Caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

There are a few more who were Assumed body and soul into Heaven.

God chose to Assume Enoch, Elijah and various Saints.

I have no doubt that Christ has the power to do the same for his own Mother, the Ark of the New Covenant and the First Christian.

Would you do the same for your mother? I hope so.

EO’s and Catholics believe Mary was assumed into Heaven. The Assumption is Catholic dogma. Whether it occurred before or after her death is not defined by Catholic dogma, Catholics are free to believe either.

Both (EO &Catholic) believe in the Assumption although I think with the EO it is not dogmatically defined as it is in the CC although they believe it was 3days after her death. Maybe an EO poster could confirm either way.

Both have a history linking them back to the Apostles. Are both wrong even though we are separated brethren now and disagree on some doctrines? Both still believe in the Assumption.


Every issue boils down to authority. Christ gave authority to the Apostles: those whom He had taught for over 3 years, not to the Bible, which did not then exist, and certainly not to individuals who each have their own interpretation of Scripture.

Is it my imagination, or are these sola scriptura types getting more militant by the day?

Frankly, there is no need for debate. If you read the challenge (rant), it is clear that it is ego and not zeal for Truth that drives this individual. We pray for his soul.

On this specific subject, I would only say that he who denies the Mother also denies the Son, and leave it at that. Again, we pray for his soul.

I do pray for James White and his wayward followers out of obedience and love for Christ. The seeds have been planted for and in him long ago. I pray to the Holy Spirit to soften his hardened heart. Debating him may have some good in getting the truth to his followers. On the other hand, he uses the debates to make money from his website. My suggestion on the latter is that both sides agree that any debate be posted on youtube or any other website free of charge so all can have access. I would not want to support his ministry even indirectly. :irish3:

Why is this thread even allowed to exist? I was under the assumption that posting spam was a rule violation. :mad:

There was a debate previously on the Assumption between Jame white and I believe, Robert Sungenis. It may be available on White’s website for you to purchase…if this one does not play…truefreethinker.com/articles/debate-bodily-assumption-mary-robert-sungenis-vs-james-white

Mayhap, but asking in so snide and condescending a manner will hardly get things off to a good start. It’s like asking if you’re a real “Christ Follower” or not. Gotta love those snarky little quotation marks.

More evidence of a bullying epidemic in this country …

James White? Pleeassseee! I have heard enough of his rheortic! He has shown his lack of charity time and time again and enough Catholic apologist have said enough to conclude the guy is nothing but an anti-Catholic full of hot air!

I can tell you this much, no one CARES and no will CARE after he moves on to the next life!

Funny. James White has every oppturtunity to engage people on the ‘Called to Communion’ website in the comments but he has never done so. He just announces that he is challenging them to a debate, without ever telling them. I guess he thinks that they listen to his podcast?

Like somebody said in this thread:

"…his use of “Called to Confusion” is just childish and insecure… again it sure doesnt give the Catholic listener the impression he wants to have a reasoned discussion. I dont agree with his theology but I dont insist on calling him “Deformed Baptist minister James White”.

I’ve listened to James White’s debates. He is not interested in the mutual pursuit of truth. He only wants score points and make jabs. So, I would not lose sleep over waiting for the grown ups at Called to Communion to rush to accept ‘Dr?’ White’s challenge.

Funny how one is not afforded the same opportunity (to leave comments, that is) on his blog …

Exactly! He tends to make childish comments when he is rebuked or pinned to the corner. He is a waste of time!

Great. While we’re at it let’s examine the modern day Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in light of both what the Bible teaches and what the early church taught for the first *900+ years *following the Last Supper.

James White advocates against “solo” scriptura so you obviously have him confused with someone else. Moreover I’ve listened to every one of Dr. White’s debates with Patrick Madrid and came away from every one feeling sorry for Mr. Madrid.

But I do have the upmost respect for Mr. Madrid for debating him since most Catholic apologists refuse to do so.

Goodness. Are you naturally this condescending to people you don’t know, or do you practice? :shrug:

I completely agree, SF.

Precisely why I stop listening to Mr.White. He is RUDE and I once saw Him debating two Jewish men…same attitude: RUDE! The guy needs an attitude adjustment.

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.