Marian Dogma debate - James White vs Peter D. Williams

youtube.com/watch?v=NqLd8mf8eS4

Very enjoyable debate. Both sides make valid points.

I was stunned to find out that Dr. White, a proclaimed teacher of Church history and a Protestant hero for so many, was apparently unaware that the East share the same Marian beliefs as we do. That factor was a big deal for me, personally, and helped me become more comfortable with the Church and her teaching’s on the blessed Mother.

Definitely worth your time. :slight_smile:

Yes, definitely a good debate that hammered on one of the primary issues that divides Catholics and Protestants: Authority.

I don’t believe White was ignorant of the East’s committment to the Marian Dogmas because he has done at least 1 dividing line addressing Hank Hanegraaff’s conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy and has mentioned similarities/differences. I think he was more taken aback that Williams would argue for the validity of the modern Marian Dogmas using a “common faith consensus” argument. In every Marian Dogma debate I’ve listened to featuring White, his opponent pain-stakingly sought to prove that the early church believed in some sense every Marian dogma. Williams threw him a bit of a curveball, albeit a confusing one.

What Williams probably referred to is called sensus fidei: SENSUS FIDEI IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH. I hope you find the link helpful. :slight_smile:

Me too! The fact that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches revere the Mother of God (and also the beliefs of the True Presence and other sacraments and priesthood) tilted me in the direction of converting to the Church.

Not sure where everyone is from, but I had NO idea what the Orthodox Church was when growing up.

Quite frankly, “Doctor” White (to my best knowledge, his “doctorate” comes from a diploma mill) is really in no position to teach church history. It is shameful that he reads what he does of church historians and the church fathers, and yet twists their words to support his baptist beliefs, often shooting other Protestant denominations in the back in the process. I say this as a Protestant. When I began reading church history and the fathers, I had to do a double take. I could no longer be Calvary Chapel/baptist. It just wasn’t an option anymore. I couldn’t lie to myself. It requires a stunning level of cognitive dissonance to persist in being baptist after studying these matters.

Incidentally, some years ago in an ACNA parish (Anglican), I was conversing with someone who had a similar backstory to mine. He was baptist, and being studying church history/reading the church fathers. He stopped being a baptist. He had been into James White before that point. I made the comment that James White and Dave Hunt deserved each other. He totally agreed. I didn’t even need to explain what I meant. (And he was Calvinist leaning, so this wasn’t an Arminians-bashing-Calvinists thing.)

I know this sounds jaded, but in order to remain a baptist after studying so much church history, one would have to be lying–both to themselves and to others. It would not surprise me if James White remains baptist because he makes money debating and selling baptist apologetics books. If he were to so much as change Protestant denominations because of all that he has read, he would no longer be the guru. He would no longer sell books. His ministry–and all the money that entails–would be over.

I warned you that I’m jaded, right?

I’ve noticed the same thing. He actually tries to make Ignatius of Antioch sound Baptist :rotfl: That is pure comedy gold.

I say this as a Protestant. When I began reading church history and the fathers, I had to do a double take. I could no longer be Calvary Chapel/baptist. It just wasn’t an option anymore. I couldn’t lie to myself. It requires a stunning level of cognitive dissonance to persist in being baptist after studying these matters.

I applaud you for doing your own homework on Church history. I was in a similar position, non denom fundamentalist my first few years as a Christian. Then I start studying up on ECF’s and did not find these sort of Churches I attended in their writings. It was a eye opening experience. I became conservative Anglican and then eventually converted to the RCC.

Incidentally, some years ago in an ACNA parish (Anglican), I was conversing with someone who had a similar backstory to mine. He was baptist, and being studying church history/reading the church fathers. He stopped being a baptist. He had been into James White before that point. I made the comment that James White and Dave Hunt deserved each other. He totally agreed. I didn’t even need to explain what I meant. (And he was Calvinist leaning, so this wasn’t an Arminians-bashing-Calvinists thing.)

I know this sounds jaded, but in order to remain a baptist after studying so much church history, one would have to be lying–both to themselves and to others. It would not surprise me if James White remains baptist because he makes money debating and selling baptist apologetics books. If he were to so much as change Protestant denominations because of all that he has read, he would no longer be the guru. He would no longer sell books. His ministry–and all the money that entails–would be over.

I warned you that I’m jaded, right?

Well, you are being honest and that is the best policy, imo.

Coincidentally, I have more respect for the KJV-only Baptist crowd. Because they generally hold to the position that the Catholic Church was corrupted from the beginning. And I think they do that because they know that Church history just isn’t on their side. .

In regards to James White…I do know he comes from a long line of Baptist ministers so if he is deliberately being disingenuous, then that explains a lot. He has a horse in this race, so to speak.

I think the typical Southern Baptist doesn’t have a opinion on Church history or even a theory on when the Church supposedly went apostate. They just believe that Rome is all wrong and oh yeah, you Anglicans get looked at a little funny as well by them.:stuck_out_tongue:

Yeah, so appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy and you can’t totally win argument like that. Much of the world thought the earth was flat at one point and they were all wrong.

But, Williams did successfully make the case that a majority of Christendom has pretty much always held the blessed Mother in very esteem in comparison to Protestant Churches of today. So that was his aim, to prove that there must have been a groundswell of evidence there…and that when there is smoke, there is fire.

[quote=BibleBullet]When I began reading church history and the fathers, I had to do a double take. I could no longer be Calvary Chapel/baptist. It just wasn’t an option anymore. I couldn’t lie to myself. It requires a stunning level of cognitive dissonance to persist in being baptist after studying these matters.
[/quote]

Your experience mirrors Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman’s, when he said: “To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant” :thumbsup:

Of course he said this here (at number 5) while he considered the validity of the Anglican Church to be just as dubious as the Evangelical/Baptist variety of Protestant, in 1845, just prior to his conversion to Catholicism.

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.