I was listening to a James White debate with Tim Staples and I was struck by his willingness to be sly and change the subject in order to appear to have answered a question. He kept saying that the teachings that were taught by the apostles were the exact same teachings as the ones that were written down, and nothing more. Seems like a lofty assumption, since no where does the Bible say that what was orally taught will only be the exact same thing as that which is written. Another point all protestants seem to make is that the Church should find itself under the Scriptuires and that the ultimate authority is in the Scriptures. I don’t know how that could be since it was the hierarchy of the Church that compiled the Scriptures, and promulgated the faith, and defeated heresies. Scriupture is powerless without the church because man would not know what scripture is without the church. And yes salvation can be achieved on an individual basis without infallable authority,but only as long as no one dissents from what is taught. As soon as there is heresy, there must be a final authority, not in man, but guarded by the Holy Spirit, to lead the church into truth and away from lies. Not having an infallable authority can only go so far before it is challenged and then the church is divided based on crafty argument and shifting opinion. As seen in all of non Catholic Christianity. Very few agree on what the Gospel is. How is it that Martin Luther and the reformers were able to get enough truth from the Catholic Church to supposedly start the true church yet the Church they got the truth from was unable to transmit such truth effectively enough to be the true church herself. If the Church was not the Church of Christ then how did all of the reformes get to be saved. Did the antiChrist save them. Did the whore of Babylon save them. Or did she just equip them with everything they needed to be saved and as soon as they were free from her clutches they were saved. Also The Catholic Church does find her self under the Scriptures. Nothing she teaches can or does contradict scripture. If Honestly looked at, every single teaching opposed by non Catholics can be found pouring from every page. And if not explicitly, implicitly. And don’t think protestants don’t use implication to back such claims as all oral teachings are nothing but written teachings, spoken.
I had the same opinion of James White by listening to his debate with Jimmy Akin and reading his book “The Roman Catholic Controversy”. He is a sly debater but lacks any substance.
James White’s only sibling, Patty Bonds, is a Catholic convert .
You can read her conversion story at www.chnetwork.org. Click on conversion stories, then scroll down to her name.
Peace be with you!
I loved James White’s debate with Jimmy Akin on the Bible Answer Man. I remember one part that I liked the most. It was when Jimmy was defending prayer to saints and James White said something along the lines of “worship belongs to God alone”. Jimmy explained away for a couple minutes disproving the notion that worship is given saints and biblically defended prayers to them. After that, James White had absolutely NO response. He simply repeated that God alone is to be worshipped, which is exactly what Jimmy Akin was saying!
James White is a good debater, though.
Did anyone see his latest tirade against Karl Keating? I thought it was extremely un-Christian. He packs a lot of hate and vitriol into his argument, but really no substance (keep in mind that I am currently a Protestant and have not quite made the decision to become a Catholic).
I saw James White debate transcripts, why is it he likes humiliating and embarassing his opponents? He wants to be the winner always and feels he overwhelmingly defeated his opponent
He has too much pride I guess… We should not follow his examples coz it is very uncatholic
I read his book “The King James Only Controversy”. It was actually a pretty good refutation of the KJO position. It was interesting, however, to notice his glossing over of the place of the deuterocanonicals in the Old Testament. He acknowledges that they were in the oldest manuscripts but never fully explains why they were removed from the OT by the Reformers.
I think he is in a bit of a quandry over that one.
James is a great debater. But like any debater, facts are optional, influence is everthing. James lacks facts but he knows how to influence people too shallow to search for truth and facts. Hum, this sounds like modern American politicians? Promise everything and then renig on the deal after elected.