Anyone know of Dr. James White?

[E.E.N.S]

Church Militant to Reformed1:

1. You were mockingly unkind to a Catholic lady in your post and (so far as I have seen) have not offered any sort of apology.

FYI, I am a man, not a lady.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Again, what lady did I mock and since the supposed female victim of the said mocking hasn’t said anything about it, do you think you might be a little oversensitive? Do you have a crush on the lady in question? A little internet romance perhaps?

Again, I am not a female, so rest assured that there is no “internet romance” involved here.

However, what CM is refering to is your response to me in post #12.

 

[Reformed1]

Again, I am not a female, so rest assured that there is no “internet romance” involved here.

However, what CM is refering to is your response to me in post #12.

I know you aren’t female…I was hoping to rag on CM a little bit more, hence my comments about the romantic interest.

If I offended you in post 12 please know it wasn’t my intention.

 

[BrianH]

FYI, I am a man, not a lady.

But still…it was nice of CM to defend your honor

 

[Reformed1]

But still…it was nice of CM to defend your honor

I’m glad that I am not the only one who sees at least some humor in this.

 

[kaycee]

Are there any Evangelical apologists who are considerd non “Anti-Catholic”?

 

[Reformed1]

Are there any Evangelical apologists who are considerd non “Anti-Catholic”?

Jack Chick is fair and balanced.

 

[kaycee]

Jack Chick is fair and balanced.

Jack is off his rocker. Not sure Fox news would think him fair and balanced.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Your not one to correct me for snide comments…I would suggest you both look in the mirror and offer fraternal correction to the catholic memebers of the forum if you are going to call me on something.

If you don’t care for James, that’s fine by me. But, if you listen to his debates you may find that quite a few arguments that are thrown around here at CAF by Catholics are not used by apologists such as Sungenis, Madrid, Pacwa, Matatics, etc.

Perhaps you haven’t understood the point of some of my posts. I’ve been flipping your “comments” that appear to be snide or arrogant back around in an effort, using humor, to point out how your comments sound. Take a look you’ll see the pattern. In post #14 CM called you on your remarks. You must not have understood, so I tired (humor) something different hoping you would understand.
My post #6 was in jest. Not intended to hurt or harm, note the smiley face.

 

[RyanL]

Are there any Evangelical apologists who are considerd non “Anti-Catholic”?

Sure!

Here are two I like:
William Lane Craig
Ravi Zacharias

You can listen to some of their talks/debates at www.veritas.org.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Reformed1]

Perhaps you haven’t understood the point of some of my posts. I’ve been flipping your “comments” that appear to be snide or arrogant back around in an effort, using humor, to point out how your comments sound. Take a look you’ll see the pattern. In post #14 CM called you on your remarks. You must not have understood, so I tired (humor) something different hoping you would understand.
My post #6 was in jest. Not intended to hurt or harm, note the smiley face.

Sean,

I didn’t take any offense at anything you posted. My issue was with CM who seems to be somewhat hypocritical on who he decides to call out and who he let’s have slack. I wan’t inferring that you or anyone else in this thread was somehow rude.

Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between comments which are meant as humorous scarcasm and comments which are not intended to be funny at all, but you didn’t post anything that I found ill mannered. I have enough sense to realize James White isn’t going to win popularity votes here but I do think by listening to your own apologists debate him some of you will develop better arguments to defend your faith.

I do find it funny that CM was rushing to the aide of a damsel in distress when it wasn’t a damsel or anyone else in need of rescuing. I had hoped that this would play out a little more before EENS let CM know that “he” ain’t a “she”, but EENS has already let the cat out of the bag.

My comment to EENS in post 12 was not mean to be hurtful in any way…it’s hard to convey the correct emotion through the written word.

 

[BlestOne]

I know you aren’t female…I was hoping to rag on CM a little bit more, hence my comments about the romantic interest.

If I offended you in post 12 please know it wasn’t my intention.

This is the kind of stuff we don’t need here. You would do much better if you stuck to the topic instead of trying to “rag” on people. Please remember that we do have rules on these forums.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Sean,

I didn’t take any offense at anything you posted. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between comments which are meant as humorous scarcasm and comments which are not intended to be funny at all, but you didn’t post anything that I found ill mannered. I have enough sense to realize James White isn’t going to win popularity votes here but I do think by listening to your own apologists debate him some of you will develop better arguments to defend your faith.

I just found it funny that CM was rushing to the aide of a damsel in distress when it wasn’t a damsel or anyone else in need of rescuing. I had hoped that this would play out a little more before EENS let CM know that “he” ain’t a “she”, but EENS has already let the cat out of the bag.

My comment to EENS in post 12 was not mean to be hurtful in any way…it’s hard to convey the correct emotion through the written word.

 

[RyanL]

Have you ever listened to or read something from him first hand?

I’ve read a number of things Mr. White has produced.

I’ve also listened (repeatedly) to the following debates:
Madrid v. White - Saints
Matatics v. White - Mass
Matatics v. White - Justification
Matatics v. White - Mary
Matatics v. White - Pope
Matatics v. White - Sola Scriptura
Fastigian v. White - Indulgences
White v. Ripplinger - KJV-only-ism
Sippo v. White - Justification
PhilVaz v. White - several topics, none critically
Sungenis v. White - Papacy
Sungenis v. White - Mass
Sungenis v. White - Purgatory
Pacwa v. White - Mass
Pacwa v. White - Papacy
Pacwa v. White - Justification
Staples v. White - Sola Scriptura
Akin v. White - Bible Answer Man “debate”

If you know of any more I can get for free, please let me know.

Mr. White’s arguments are prima facie convincing - this is to say that they sound good at first blush. If you’re not familiar with the way each argument and counter-argument goes outside of a debate, Mr. White is a very convincing debater who does well against Catholic opposition.

If you are familiar with (1) the ECFs Mr. White appeals to and (2) the full arguments (i.e., outside the constraints of a debate), Mr. White is far less convincing. This accounts for some of the variety of opinion regarding how Mr. White does in the debates.

Take St. Athanasius, for example. Mr. White paints him in several debates/writings as a Sola Scriptura believer. Now read this. Mr. White would say that this is un-Biblical heresy. Well…either (1) this is Biblical or (2) St. Athanasius didn’t believe Sola Scriptura.

“No,” would reply Mr. White, “he believed Sola Scriptura but he didn’t consistently apply it.” (This is characteristic of the statements Mr. White has made before, but it is speculation on my part that he would actually say as much here.) Now that’s a nice sounding response which explains the evidence, but unfortunately the brush is so broad it would pain each and every ***Catholic ***as a Sola Scriptura believer; in other words, it’s not an adequate answer. If the standard for believing Sola Scriptura is that you believe the Bible is the holy, inspired, infallible word of God - but you don’t have to use it as a sole authority in matters of faith and morals to believe it - then I’m a Sola Scriptura believer!

Mr. White also tends to skew the debate by frequently throwing out the words “Mary, Indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit…”, despite the fact that they’re completely irrelevant to the particular debate topic. He does this shotgun style apologetics in most of the debates, and it’s simply a form of poisoning the well.

If you find any particular argument of his particularly good, please voice it and perhaps we can show you why we don’t think it’s as good as you do.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[MrS]

Ryan L

You have nicely summarized the shortcomings of MR White without listing the numerous mistakes (errors) he does make. And as for his switching topics, or tossing other off-point topics into a debate… you are right on.

good summary

 

[Reformed1]

I’ve read a number of things Mr. White has produced.

I’ve also listened (repeatedly) to the following debates:
Madrid v. White - Saints
Matatics v. White - Mass
Matatics v. White - Justification
Matatics v. White - Mary
Matatics v. White - Pope
Matatics v. White - Sola Scriptura
Fastigian v. White - Indulgences
White v. Ripplinger - KJV-only-ism
Sippo v. White - Justification
PhilVaz v. White - several topics, none critically
Sungenis v. White - Papacy
Sungenis v. White - Mass
Sungenis v. White - Purgatory
Pacwa v. White - Mass
Pacwa v. White - Papacy
Pacwa v. White - Justification
Staples v. White - Sola Scriptura
Akin v. White - Bible Answer Man “debate”

If you know of any more I can get for free, please let me know.

Mr. White’s arguments are prima facie convincing - this is to say that they sound good at first blush. If you’re not familiar with the way each argument and counter-argument goes outside of a debate, Mr. White is a very convincing debater who does well against Catholic opposition.

If you are familiar with (1) the ECFs Mr. White appeals to and (2) the full arguments (i.e., outside the constraints of a debate), Mr. White is far less convincing. This accounts for some of the variety of opinion regarding how Mr. White does in the debates.

Take St. Athanasius, for example. Mr. White paints him in several debates/writings as a Sola Scriptura believer. Now read this. Mr. White would say that this is un-Biblical heresy. Well…either (1) this is Biblical or (2) St. Athanasius didn’t believe Sola Scriptura.

“No,” would reply Mr. White, “he believed Sola Scriptura but he didn’t consistently apply it.” (This is characteristic of the statements Mr. White has made before, but it is speculation on my part that he would actually say as much here.) Now that’s a nice sounding response which explains the evidence, but unfortunately the brush is so broad it would pain each and every ***Catholic ***as a Sola Scriptura believer; in other words, it’s not an adequate answer. If the standard for believing Sola Scriptura is that you believe the Bible is the holy, inspired, infallible word of God - but you don’t have to use it as a sole authority in matters of faith and morals to believe it - then I’m a Sola Scriptura believer!

Mr. White also tends to skew the debate by frequently throwing out the words “Mary, Indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit…”, despite the fact that they’re completely irrelevant to the particular debate topic. He does this shotgun style apologetics in most of the debates, and it’s simply a form of poisoning the well.

If you find any particular argument of his particularly good, please voice it and perhaps we can show you why we don’t think it’s as good as you do.

God Bless,
RyanL

Ryan,

Do you admit that RCC apologists also use debate tactics such as poisoning the well also?

 

[MrS]

Ryan,

Do you admit that RCC apologists also use debate tactics such as poisoning the well also?

Perhaps there is a difference… many (if not all) debaters will either break that rule without intent… it just happens in the “heat of the discussion”…

while MR White employs the tactic as a matter of course… and yes I have listened to a great many of his “debates”… and have exchanged emails with him… they were also a tad poisened to avoid my question or observation.

 

[kaycee]

Sure!

Here are two I like:
William Lane Craig
Ravi Zacharias

You can listen to some of their talks/debates at www.veritas.org.

God Bless,
RyanL

Sorry, I meant Evangelical apologist who will speak openly on the doctrinal problems with Rome.

 

[Reformed1]

Perhaps there is a difference… many (if not all) debaters will either break that rule without intent… it just happens in the “heat of the discussion”…

while MR White employs the tactic as a matter of course… and yes I have listened to a great many of his “debates”… and have exchanged emails with him… they were also a tad poisened to avoid my question or observation.

Could you post your e-mails for us?

 

[RyanL]

Ryan,

Do you admit that RCC apologists also use debate tactics such as poisoning the well also?

Poisoning the well, specifically? No, with the possible exception of Art Sippo. Art Sippo can be pretty nasty in debates.

Other fallacies? Um…not so much that I can think of off hand. Occasionally an appeal to authority will drop, but Mr. White does a good job of countering with same. There are also some hasty generalizations, but Mr. White counters with unrepresentative samples so I’d call it a draw. Mr. White has a tendency to equivocate, particularly with the word “development”, and use false dichotomies. I haven’t seen this as much (if at all) with the opposition, but I’m typically listening for an ear toward Mr. White so I can’t say for sure. If you know particular instances, I would like to know of them so I can listen for them next time I go through the debates.

MrS:

… and have exchanged emails with him… they were also a tad poisened to avoid my question or observation.

You too? He would paste parts of my letters (with permission) on his blog as a means to reply, but he would omit my citations - particularly with regards to the Gibberah tradition in the OT - which frustrated me to no end.

He also accused me of not knowing his positions on various topics - which was completely true and well-founded. That’s why I stopped exchanging e-mails with him and when/why I started listening/reading to what he had to say. Now that I’m more familiar, I may try writing him again.

Despite trying to familiarize myself with his theology, I can’t seem to pin him down on what he means by “regeneration” and when it takes place. Is it complete, infused and objectively true at the moment of accepting Christ, or is it incomplete (Westminster Confession Ch XI)? If it is incomplete, why? Could God not get the job done at the outset or is there some obstacle we present which limits the effectiveness (or something else)? Does he reject the Westminster Confession (specifically Ch XXVII) or does he accept it? I know he uses it as an authoritative statement on other topics… Basically, I want him to do a good writing/sermon either on what parts of the WC he believes or doesn’t believe, or a good writing/sermon on the full topic of “Biblical regeneration”. I just can’t seem to figure out his position. If he’s done this already and I simply haven’t seen it, please let me know where.

OTOH, I was fairly critical of his ad hominem attacks on another thread (of which he was well aware) so he might not care to dialog with me again. Can’t say I’d blame him - I called him on a number of things in a fairly blunt manner. Perhaps he’s big enough to forgive me if I caused offense?

God Bless,
RyanL