Dr. James White

[inkaneer]

I believe the work he has done more than justifies his doctorate. People get “Honorary PhD’s” in recognition of their work and nobody questions the validity of that. Dr. White has authored several books (some of which have endorsements from Roman Catholic apologists), and has debated Muslims, Mormons, athiests, etc., etc., so I would assert that his body of work more than justifies his ThD. Of course, you may disagree, but that does not diminish the work he has done.

Yes but Mr. White’s THD is not an honorary degree. His degree is from a nonacredited correspondence school in Washington State called Columbia Evangelical Seminary. This place doesn’t even have a campus just an office and a P.O. box. The reason Mr. White debates Mormons , Muslims, atheists, etc. is because he is good at baiting them. From my research on the internet it appears that Mr. White * makes his living by baiting others and then arranging a debate. He then edits the tape and sells it to his followers or anyone gullible enough to buy one. I wonder what would happen to Mr. White if everyone did as Scott Hahn did?*

 

[Cachonga]

inkaneer:

Yes but Mr. White’s THD is not an honorary degree. His degree is from a nonacredited correspondence school in Washington State called Columbia Evangelical Seminary. This place doesn’t even have a campus just an office and a P.O. box.

I see your point. You have no reasonable, logical answer for any of the work he has done, so you attack his education because the school lacked government accreditation. Sounds like an ad hominen attack to me.

The reason Mr. White debates Mormons , Muslims, atheists, etc. is because he is good at baiting them. From my research on the internet it appears that Mr. White * makes his living by baiting others and then arranging a debate. *
What exactly do you mean by “baiting” someone into a debate? Can you give an example of him “baiting” someone into a debate? What “research” have you done online? What sites have you visited? What blog articles can you point to? Please back up your assertions.

He then edits the tape and sells it to his followers or anyone gullible enough to buy one. I wonder what would happen to Mr. White if everyone did as Scott Hahn did?

Here is an interesting claim, especially since I sit here and notice the ad for the Staples vs. Gregg debate being offered (for sale) by CA. Don’t RC apologists sell their debate tapes and videos to their followers? Don’t they go through some editing process to ensure the sound (and possibly video) quality is good before making a master copy? It seems like it’s OK for RC apologists to do that, but if anyone else does it, it’s dishonest. Of course, I understand that you are not referring to the normal editing process (ensuring the sound and video quality is good), but are actually accusing him of altering the tapes. Can you provide a single shred of evidence that this has happened? He had an on-air debate with Tim Staples back in January (I listened to it live), and the audio portion was on his blog the next day, and there was no difference in what was said. If you have proof that he has altered something, please provide the evidence. If you do, I would be happy to present it to Dr. White and demand an explanation. If you can’t provide any such proof, then please withdraw the accusation.

 

[inkaneer]

I see your point. You have no reasonable, logical answer for any of the work he has done, so you attack his education because the school lacked government accreditation. Sounds like an ad hominen attack to me.

First of all it is not an ad hominen attack. That occurs when the attacking person disregards the subject under discussion and attackes the person presenting the other side. But I made no such attack on you. As for Mr. White, he and what he does is the subject of this discussion and his credentials or lack thereof is certainly within the boundaries of discussion especially since you commented on them.

As for the accreditation issue, it is not government accreditation. Institutions of higher learning are rated by academic accrediting agencies based upon their curiculum, their facilities and their faculty. Accredation is a much sought after matter and is the academic equivalent of the Underwriters Seal of Aproval for products.

As for “his work”, what work? The man writes books denouncing some other denomination going as far as to intentionally skew their beliefs and when they protest he offers to debate them so he can then sell those tapes to his followers. Is that what you call “his work”?

What exactly do you mean by “baiting” someone into a debate? Can you give an example of him “baiting” someone into a debate? What “research” have you done online? What sites have you visited? What blog articles can you point to? Please back up your assertions.

See the above then do a google search on James White THD.

Here is an interesting claim, especially since I sit here and notice the ad for the Staples vs. Gregg debate being offered (for sale) by CA. Don’t RC apologists sell their debate tapes and videos to their followers? Don’t they go through some editing process to ensure the sound (and possibly video) quality is good before making a master copy? It seems like it’s OK for RC apologists to do that, but if anyone else does it, it’s dishonest. Of course, I understand that you are not referring to the normal editing process (ensuring the sound and video quality is good), but are actually accusing him of altering the tapes. Can you provide a single shred of evidence that this has happened? He had an on-air debate with Tim Staples back in January (I listened to it live), and the audio portion was on his blog the next day, and there was no difference in what was said. If you have proof that he has altered something, please provide the evidence. If you do, I would be happy to present it to Dr. White and demand an explanation. If you can’t provide any such proof, then please withdraw the accusation.

I note that Mr. White, in his dialogue with the Mormons, was specifically requested by Dr. Hamblin not to change any of the correspondence and to post all of the correspondence. Specifically the request was stated as:

"Dear James,

It’s been almost two weeks and I have not yet seen your “rebuttal.” Can I expect it any time soon?

You have my permission to post my letter on your web site with the following conditions:

1- That you allow SHIELDS to post your original “etract” on their site, along with any further correspondence from you on this issue.
2- That you do not change my letters to you (except for deletion of redundant repetitions typical of email).
3- That you post ALL of my correspondence on this issue.

I seem to recall that the last time we had an email debate you had a bit of trouble with number three.

Can I have any assurance from you that you will not again summarily end the discussion and refuse to fully post my position on the debate?"

[Subject: RE: Response to James on Temples
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 14:23:53 -0600
From: “William J. Hamblin”
To: orthopodeo@aomin.org]

Please notice the emphasis Dr. Hamblin placed in number 3. “That you post ALL of my correspondence on this issue.” Why? He states his reason, “I seem to recall that the last time we had an email debate you had a bit of trouble with number three.” Such a request is not made if no issue is present. Apparently Dr. Hamblin experienced such an issue before with Mr. White.

 

[Cachonga]

inkaneer:

First of all it is not an ad hominen attack. That occurs when the attacking person disregards the subject under discussion and attackes the person presenting the other side. But I made no such attack on you. As for Mr. White, he and what he does is the subject of this discussion and his credentials or lack thereof is certainly within the boundaries of discussion especially since you commented on them.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear - it appeared to me that you were making an ad hominen attack against Dr. White, not myself. I will withdraw the charge. As you point out, his credintials are part of the topic (the OP did used the title Dr).

As for “his work”, what work? The man writes books denouncing some other denomination going as far as to intentionally skew their beliefs and when they protest he offers to debate them so he can then sell those tapes to his followers. Is that what you call “his work”?

Again, assertions with no evidence. How has he skewed the beliefs of another religion? Please be specific! If you want to assert that he skews and misrepresents the Catholic Church, I would expect some documentation to back up the assertion.

See the above then do a google search on James White THD.

Am I doing your research for you now? When I cite a source, I will give a link to the exact page (or as close as possible, as some pages can be very long). Telling me to do a google search doesn’t work. Don’t you know where you found your information? Haven’t you read through it? Have you even looked to see if your initial assertion has been answered?

I note that Mr. White, in his dialogue with the Mormons, was specifically requested by Dr. Hamblin not to change any of the correspondence and to post all of the correspondence. Specifically the request was stated as:

Since I am very interested in the truth, and a fair and honest assesment, I did, in fact, google James White THD as you suggested, and I found the article you referred to (see Letter Two here). I also notice that in the very next letter (Letter Three), James stated, “BTW, I have no interest in your demands . You sent a rebuttal to my tract: I will rebut it, not open up our page to an endless series of meaningless e-mail messages. If you wish to post such things on SHIELDS, that is, of course, your prerogative.” Seems clear to me that James made it very clear that he had no intentions of posting everything Dr. Hamblin had to say. You have not proven your assertion.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe the work he has done more than justifies his doctorate. People get “Honorary PhD’s” in recognition of their work and nobody questions the validity of that. Dr. White has authored several books (some of which have endorsements from Roman Catholic apologists), and has debated Muslims, Mormons, athiests, etc., etc., so I would assert that his body of work more than justifies his ThD. Of course, you may disagree, but that does not diminish the work he has done.

Why didn’t you just say that you don’t know where the ThD comes from?

I saw that another post (post #21) does name the source of the ThD and it doesn’t sound too promising. All things considered you haven’t made a case for asking that James White be given the title Dr.

 

[Michael96]

As a Catholic, I’ve listened to James White for a couple of years now. Much of what he has had to say I have found useful and has helped me understand the church as a whole. I find his style can be rather overly aggressive and ad hom on his radio show (though he is calm and respectful to people in debates, so perhaps he just likes to add a little spice to his radio show). But my uneasiness with his style could just be a cultural thing, as we’re not quite so up-front in the UK. He is a very good debater, and sometimes (as with all debates) you have to allow yourself a little time to reflect on things and separate out the essential arguments from the debating skills.

But I do think Catholics should understand more about the Reformed position, and vice versa, as both positions are part of the history of Christianity. I have learned generally not to trust someone telling me about somebody else’s position so I think to find out about Reformed theology you have to read, or listen to, Reformed Christians. I would not trust a Catholic to fairly portray Reformed theology, just as I wouldn’t trust a Reformed Christian to fairly portray Catholic Christianity (though to be fair to James White, aggressive as he can be, I think he tries very hard to portray the other side properly in context).

 

[inkaneer]

As a Catholic, I’ve listened to James White for a couple of years now. Much of what he has had to say I have found useful and has helped me understand the church as a whole. I find his style can be rather overly aggressive and ad hom on his radio show (though he is calm and respectful to people in debates, so perhaps he just likes to add a little spice to his radio show). But my uneasiness with his style could just be a cultural thing, as we’re not quite so up-front in the UK. He is a very good debater, and sometimes (as with all debates) you have to allow yourself a little time to reflect on things and separate out the essential arguments from the debating skills.

But I do think Catholics should understand more about the Reformed position, and vice versa, as both positions are part of the history of Christianity. I have learned generally not to trust someone telling me about somebody else’s position so I think to find out about Reformed theology you have to read, or listen to, Reformed Christians. I would not trust a Catholic to fairly portray Reformed theology, just as I wouldn’t trust a Reformed Christian to fairly portray Catholic Christianity (though to be fair to James White, aggressive as he can be, I think he tries very hard to portray the other side properly in context).

But here is the point. If Jesus said that Hell would not prevail over His Church [Mt 16:18]why then is there any need for any reformed anything? In the great Commission Jesus gave His church its marching orders. The Church was to preach the Gospel and to Baptize [Mt 28:19]. The only way that hell could prevail was if the church would ever teach error instead of truth. But Jesus said that would not happen so why did men reform something that Jesus said would not need reformed? And why did that so called “reformation” completely reject doctrines established in the church for centuries before?

 

[Michael96]

But here is the point. If Jesus said that Hell would not prevail over His Church [Mt 16:18] why then is there any need for any reformed anything?

That’s a fair question Inkaneer. I suppose my thoughts on that are…

1. I believe His “Church” is the body of Christ which encompasses Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant believers. And so His Church prevails in a number of different expressions at the moment.
2. I think there was a need for “reformation” in the 16th century, but I am disappointed that could not be achieved without schism. The causes of the Reformation appear complex; there was misbehavior in the Church, there were doctrinal differences coming to the fore, and there were political alliances and enmities that would drive a wedge across Europe.
3. We can regret that the reformation tore the Church apart, but we then have to live with that fact. Ever since the reformation, strains of theology (some good and some bad) have been developing in both Catholic and Protestant Churches and there has been cross-fertilization (sometimes helped by great thinkers, such as John Henry Newman, crossing the divide and bringing a little of one theology to the other). You can be sure that many leading Catholic theologians would have read Barth and Jürgen Moltmann, and I think it is not hard to detect Moltmann’s theology of the cross (Christ on the cross uniting himself with the suffering; “The Suffering God” as Moltmann titled his work) in mainstream Catholic theology of today. So while there is a “tension” between Catholic and Protestant churches there is also a sharing of thought with perhaps each at time shining a light on something the other had neglected. I think James White, crusty and grumpy as he sometimes is (but he’s from Arizona so I’ll allow him that; he should come and join us punting on the Cam in Cambridge, that will soon relax him much more than all that cycling up and down mountains he does), plays a role in that process, bringing theology out of the ivory towers and into the market place and onto the street corners. I do think James White deserves some respect as a scholar, debater and communicator of Reformed theology.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
As for “his work”, what work? The man writes books denouncing some other denomination going as far as to intentionally skew their beliefs and when they protest he offers to debate them so he can then sell those tapes to his followers. Is that what you call “his work”?

Again, assertions with no evidence. How has he skewed the beliefs of another religion? Please be specific! If you want to assert that he skews and misrepresents the Catholic Church, I would expect some documentation to back up the assertion.

The man makes a living doing debates. His modus operendi is as follows, first he writes a book with inflamatory and false accusations and allegations knowing full well that his target will respond denouncing him and his book. He sells his book to his followers He then offers to debate his allegations with whoever. He then sells the tapes of the debates. A good example is his book, *Mary–Another Redeemer? * If he did his homework which he does do. Then he would know that Catholics do not claim Mary was another redeeemer. Her proposed title of Co- Redemptrix means that by her participation in God’s plan of Remption [which we call the Incarnation] she WITH [the *CO- part of Co-Redemptrix] Jesus effected redemption for mankind. Mr. White, doing his homework, would know that but that is not controversial and he doesn’t sell books by not being controversal. Just the opposite is true. So he skews the Catholic teaching. He was called to task for this by William Possidento who wrote a review. As a follow on Mr. Possidento wrote:

“I hope that no one mistakes my review or counter-reply for ad hominem attack. My truck throughout is with Mr. White’s misstatements and elisions. As much as I disagree with his errors and am disappointed by his omissions, I wish him well, though currently we would not agree upon what is well for him.”

Am I doing your research for you now? When I cite a source, I will give a link to the exact page (or as close as possible, as some pages can be very long). Telling me to do a google search doesn’t work. Don’t you know where you found your information? Haven’t you read through it? Have you even looked to see if your initial assertion has been answered?

See your statement below. You apparently did find Mr. White on Google search. Wasn’t hard now, was it?

Since I am very interested in the truth, and a fair and honest assesment, I did, in fact, google James White THD as you suggested, and I found the article you referred to (see Letter Two here). I also notice that in the very next letter (Letter Three), James stated, “BTW, I have no interest in your demands . You sent a rebuttal to my tract: I will rebut it, not open up our page to an endless series of meaningless e-mail messages. If you wish to post such things on SHIELDS, that is, of course, your prerogative.” Seems clear to me that James made it very clear that he had no intentions of posting everything Dr. Hamblin had to say. You have not proven your assertion.

Of course Mr. White has no interest in continuing any dialogue with his target. There is no money in it and he has far too many targets to be bogged down in continuing a dialogue with no reward. Mr. White is not interested in a long drawn out pitched battle. He wants to shoot and run. That’s where the money is. The best thing for any one to do is to ignore him just like Scott Hahn does.

 

[Cachonga]

inkaneer, you continue making accusations against Dr. White and it doesn’t seem to bother you that the same arguements could be lodged against any RC apologist you care to name (include Scott Hahn). Name me a single RC apologist that doesn’t sell books or tapes. I haven’t read "Mary - Another Redeemer? (I would like to), so I can’t comment on it, but I have listened to him debate the Marian dogmas, and he has shown familiarity with the Catholic position. If by “skew” you mean that he shows how a specific position (such as co-redemptrix) contradicts Scripture, then I have to agree. Dr, White just can’t seem to avoid referring to the God-breathed Scriptures. As for Mr Possidento’s review, I would like to read the entire article, but no link was offered, and I have more (name removed by moderator)ortant things to do than your research, so it’ll have to wait.

You accuse Dr. White of not wanting to continue the dialogue because there was no profit in it. Have you even read what Dr. Hamblin was writing? What if I continually twisted your words to make it sound like you agreed with me about James White? How long would you want to continue the “dialogue”? What RC apologist would tolerate such a “dialogue”? You have a glaring problem with your double standard; it seems that if an RC apologists writes a book or produces a tape to sell for a profit, that’s OK, but if an “anti-Catholic” does it, he’s greedy, self-serving and dishonest. If someone (like Dr. Hamblin) twisted the words of an RC apologist, it would be acceptable for him to discontinue the “dialogue”, but when it’s an “anti-Catholic”, he cuts it off because (as you claim) “There is no money in it”.

The sad thing is, I’m not sure, even after this, that you will see your error. Please understand, I am not claiming to be infallible; I readily admit I could be wrong (that’s why I ask for proof of your accusations). So far, you have not provided anything to back up your charges. If you’re only concern is to impress your fellow Catholics, I’m sure there are plenty out there who will applaud you and congratulate you on how you handled my questions. My hope and prayer is that someone (you and/or someone else who reads this) will realize there is a need for a fair and honest evaluation (not just of James White, but of any topic that is brought up). Until you realize this, I don’t see any benefit in continuing to discuss this with you.

Pax!

 

[inkaneer]

inkaneer, you continue making accusations against Dr. White and it doesn’t seem to bother you that the same arguements could be lodged against any RC apologist you care to name (include Scott Hahn). Name me a single RC apologist that doesn’t sell books or tapes. I haven’t read “Mary - Another Redeemer? (I would like to), so I can’t comment on it, but I have listened to him debate the Marian dogmas, and he has shown familiarity with the Catholic position. If by “skew” you mean that he shows how a specific position (such as co-redemptrix) contradicts Scripture, then I have to agree. Dr, White just can’t seem to avoid referring to the God-breathed Scriptures. As for Mr Possidento’s review, I would like to read the entire article, but no link was offered, and I have more (name removed by moderator)ortant things to do than your research, so it’ll have to wait.”

The difference, and there is a definite difference, is that the Catholics are true apologists giving a defense for the faith that is in them. Mr. White, on the other hand is constantly in attack mode. He attacks Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, fellow protestants, anyone and everyone without an iota of provacation directed against him. Can you show me where scripture approves or even recommends this kind of behavior? It is not exactly conforming to the concept of the meek inheriting the earth now is it?

You accuse Dr. White of not wanting to continue the dialogue because there was no profit in it. Have you even read what Dr. Hamblin was writing? What if I continually twisted your words to make it sound like you agreed with me about James White? How long would you want to continue the “dialogue”? What RC apologist would tolerate such a “dialogue”? You have a glaring problem with your double standard; it seems that if an RC apologists writes a book or produces a tape to sell for a profit, that’s OK, but if an “anti-Catholic” does it, he’s greedy, self-serving and dishonest. If someone (like Dr. Hamblin) twisted the words of an RC apologist, it would be acceptable for him to discontinue the “dialogue”, but when it’s an “anti-Catholic”, he cuts it off because (as you claim) “There is no money in it”.

Dr. Hamblin made the allegation that Mr. White did not want to continue the dialogue, not I. And as I understand Dr. Hanblin it was Mr. White who was “loose” with the truth. If Dr. Hanblin was alone in this accusation I would say the jury was still out on the question but unfortunately [for Mr. White] Dr. Hanblin is not alone.

The sad thing is, I’m not sure, even after this, that you will see your error. Please understand, I am not claiming to be infallible; I readily admit I could be wrong (that’s why I ask for proof of your accusations). So far, you have not provided anything to back up your charges. If you’re only concern is to impress your fellow Catholics, I’m sure there are plenty out there who will applaud you and congratulate you on how you handled my questions. My hope and prayer is that someone (you and/or someone else who reads this) will realize there is a need for a fair and honest evaluation (not just of James White, but of any topic that is brought up). Until you realize this, I don’t see any benefit in continuing to discuss this with you.

Pax!

You obviously are enamored by the man and I can understand your wanting to let go of this topic. After all portraying one self as having a Doctor of Theology degree and then having it exposed as a nonaccredited correspondence school says something about the man. There is a huge difference in attending a regular seminary that is fully accredited and the mail order type correspondence school that doesn’t even attempt to gain accredation. CES opted out of accredation using a loop hole in the law. A doctorate degree from one is not the equivalent of the same degree from the other. So Mr. White has a THD degree which arguably is not worth the paper it is printed on. But he can add the title Dr. to his name without lying but without telling the full truth either. And that carries over into his writings designed not to defend but to antagonize. You are welcome to James R. White as you obviously follow him. I, for one, do not discern his fruit as being worthy of anyone wanting to call themselves a christian. So on that we can agree to disagree.

 

[Michael96]

The difference, and there is a definite difference, is that the Catholics are true apologists giving a defense for the faith that is in them. Mr. White, on the other hand is constantly in attack mode. He attacks Mormons, Muslims, Catholics, fellow protestants, anyone and everyone without an iota of provacation directed against him.

I can see what you are saying. I wouldn’t say James White is always attacking other people’s faith, but he certainly seems to get most of his energy responding to things he sees as wrong rather than simply preaching his “home position”. At least I think this is the case on his radio/internet show; I think his sermons as an elder (which he posts on his blog) appear much more genuinely “apologetic”.

I was disappointed that on his show tonight he reviewed this thread and said that all Catholics who posted were completely biased. I thought I had tried to give a balanced view. I haven’t listened to the whole show yet as I had to go out, but if those were his only comments then I feel he has put his own “spin” on this thread as it didn’t acknowledge those Catholics defending him, and it would strengthen my developing view that “apologetics” overall is getting far too commercially competitive, with apologists becoming too concerned about promoting their own personal fiefdoms (I would see no difference essential between James White’s and Ergun Caner; they perhaps just spin things in different ways).

In fact I have to say I’m pretty angry. Up until now I have considered James White a honest and sincere man. But his review of this thread has made me seriously doubt his honesty. I doubt I’ll continue to listen to his podcasts (not that I imagine one person is important to him). I feel let down by someone who I considered honest even though I disagreed with some of his theology.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I was disappointed that on his show tonight he reviewed this thread and said that all Catholics who posted were completely biased. I thought I had tried to give a balanced view.

Michael, you’ve been more than charitable. Don’t worry about it. It’s what he does and his audience is in the market to hear that all Catholics are biased and can’t think for themselves. It’s plain that there are posts in here providing specific information about White’s claims/exegesis, etc… Whether or not another individual wants to admit that is irrelevant.

 

[Mikaele]

Wow, my thread made his show! he must spend a lot of time on the internet.

 

[inkaneer]

Wow, my thread made his show! he must spend a lot of time on the internet.

I didn’t waste my time with his show. Actually the truth is I don’t know how to access his show but if I did I would not waste my time with it. I can only imagine what he said or thinks about me after my posts on this thread. Be it known that my intent was not mean spirited but rather my discernment was that tactics employed by James White are not christian like. To make a statement, like another poster reported that he did, wherein he claimed that all Catholics are biased is ludicrous. Over 1.1 billion Catholics in the world and everyone of them is biased against James White. I take that to mean that Catholics don’t see things his way.

 

[rcporras]

As a Catholic , I have to say Dr. James White is very good with debates. He knows book cover to cover but all i can see from him is that he is a very intelligent person BUT he lacks LOVE. That is why he will never understand the catholic faith. All he does is attack and and go with his books but with love nope. I dont see it in him.

God bless!

 

[Trebor135]

As a Catholic , I have to say Dr. James White is very good with debates. He knows book cover to cover but all i can see from him is that he is a very intelligent person BUT he lacks LOVE. That is why he will never understand the catholic faith. All he does is attack and and go with his books but with love nope. I dont see it in him.

God bless!

What specifically makes you say the above? (I am not seeking to defend White, or attack him for that matter.)

 

[patricius79]

He runs Alpha & Omega Ministries out of Arizona, I believe. He is heavily involved in the debate arena. Probably 30 or more of the debates he’s done is versus Catholics. He adheres to Calvinistic beliefs as near as I can tell. He believes he is undefeated in debates against Catholics (will link to PhilVaz’s site for reference when he’s back up). His sister is Patty Bonds, who is a convert to the Catholic Church and has appeared on shows like The Journey Home.
.

I called his ministry one time and the man I spoke with said that Scott Hahn wasn’t Christian but was “a deciever”. They seem like a very strident group

 

[jking1962]

From the little I watched James White debate he appears to use tactics to offset his opponent and well as win the crowd with his presentation. One of his big tactics is to lead his opponents into the weeds and get off the main subject. I do not like this because it is too much like the way the World debates. Let the truth be plain with reason. The problem here is that the Protestant heresy cannot be supported when examined with the light of reason. I believe he particularly despises Catholic apologists because he can’t kick their butts like he does with the KJV only guy (easy target) or the Armenian etc. I watched him rant on his website about how wrong our Catholic apologists were with citing over 30,000 denominations and where they got that number. I don’t need to cite any document. Just take a drive through town. The point is that Protestant Evangelicalism is continually reinventing itself as evidenced by the large number of Protestant sects. I would stick to one topic with that rascal, Sola Scriptura. It is easy to show that this heresy could not have existed in a certain space of time (pre-canon). It is easy to show that men argued over the content of the canon and ultimately men proclaimed what that content was. The written word of God did not get not get hand delivered to us by an angel but required an earthbound authority to bring in its existence. But James White being a very intelligent man can put up a great show (not reason) to offset his opponent and win the audience. The Devil was also good at this.

 

[Trebor135]

From the little I watched James White debate he appears to use tactics to offset his opponent and well as win the crowd with his presentation. One of his big tactics is to lead his opponents into the weeds and get off the main subject. I do not like this because it is too much like the way the World debates. Let the truth be plain with reason.

Can you give some concrete examples where he engages in such unsavory methods?

The problem here is that the Protestant heresy cannot be supported when examined with the light of reason.

Indeed.

I believe he particularly despises Catholic apologists because he can’t kick their butts

I would speculate that it has more to do with engrained cultural prejudice. Catholics are easy to hate on, both in nineteenth-century Protestant and twenty-first-century secular America. White is more sophisticated than Chick, but they’re on the same confused side.

like he does with the KJV only guy (easy target)

I’ve got to go find one of White’s debates with a KJV-only Evangelical on YouTube–I’ve never seen one before.

or the Armenian etc.

Has he been getting out of his comfort zone to go after Oriental Orthodoxy too now? (Do you mean Arminian?–There’s a big difference! )

I watched him rant on his website about how wrong our Catholic apologists were with citing over 30,000 denominations and where they got that number. I don’t need to cite any document. Just take a drive through town. The point is that Protestant Evangelicalism is continually reinventing itself as evidenced by the large number of Protestant sects.

White was correct to object to the figure of about thirty-three thousand Protestant denominations, but the real number of over five thousand is appalling enough.

I would stick to one topic with that rascal, Sola Scriptura. It is easy to show that this heresy could not have existed in a certain space of time (pre-canon). It is easy to show that men argued over the content of the canon and ultimately men proclaimed what that content was. The written word of God did not get not get hand delivered to us by an angel but required an earthbound authority to bring in its existence.

Well said.

But James White being a very intelligent man can put up a great show (not reason) to offset his opponent and win the audience.

As above, where specifically has he done this?

The Devil was also good at this.

Indeed.