James White Article-12Feb

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Dude

Guest
I was bored so I decided to see what the latest rant over at James Whites page was about…anyway I noticed this article:
Who Has The Fullness of Truth?

There were a couple of paragraphs that didnt sound right and I decided to talk about them:Here we see a fundamental difference in the understanding of just what conversion is for Protestants and Catholics. In the Scriptures we read how God uses His people to proclaim the Gospel to those the Lord calls (Acts 8:35). The Lord opens hearts to respond (Acts 16:14). This gospel message declares to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness (Rom. 4:5). This is a Gospel of peace (Eph. 6:15), a peace that comes through the blood of the cross (Col. 1:20). This isn’t a hypothetical peace; this is a real and lasting peace. Given is not a possible salvation, but an actual salvation. Given is a full and guaranteed salvation, not a salvation including chances of disqualification.
Im not sure what he is getting with the first two “differences” considering there is nothing unCatholic about them…infact in the context of each of the Acts quotes it supports the need for Baptism in ones conversion…you cant get more Catholic than that. Next he goes on with the typical Romans 4 verse but again, he fails to note why or how this is in conflict with Catholic teaching. He is most likely promoting faith alone in a drive by manner but this article doesnt do justice to the issue of conversion. The Eph 6 reference is also interesting considering its in the context of Paul teaching Christains to prepare for the daily struggle they will encounter in trying to live a holy life, this is perfectly inline with Catholicism. Finally the Col passage, while there is nothing unCatholic about 1:20, the follow up INTERPRETATION regarding a “guaranteed salvation” excluding the possibility of “disqualification” IS unCatholic…but thats because its unBiblical…observe some passages from Collosians:22But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. -Col 1

18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. -Col 2

It is clear this is an “IF” situation, “IF you continue in your faith”…nothing guarantee here…infact the second quote says explicitly you can be “disqualified”…in total contradiction to what White asserts. Colossians ch3 goes into more detail how Christians must strive to avoid sin.
Sofar it is White that has gone off track in regards to the fullness of the Gospel. Rather than moving towards the fullness of truth, one needs to stop and ask the Catholic convert why they have moved away from the fullness of truth. They have gone from Christ’s completed work on the cross that saved His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) to an uncertainty of their state of grace, “…[W]ithout a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions that are necessary for achieving justification” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Rockford Ill.: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974), p.262).
Here we see another problem in the OSAS mentality, above he talks about how these protestants who converted to Catholicism have gone to a state of “uncertainty”…so apparently their previous faith which had given them “real and lasting peace…an actual salvation…a full and guaranteed salvation”…has now become “uncertainty of their state of grace”…does this make sense?
As for the quote from Ludwig Ott, again it is the Catholics who have it right:10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead,** 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.** -Phil 3
 
Dude, you seemed confused on what the Reformed position is on election

the Big Box non denom OSAS vs Reformed ‘election’(Dr White is Reformed)

Big Box- people promise themselves salvation
Reformed- God gives them faith for salvation , and promises none can pluck them from his hand
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

big difference huh?

anyways…Dr White questions if those who convert away were actually saved to begin with(not that I share his view- but wanted you to know he wasnt violating the Perseverance of the Saints pillar in Reformed Theology)
 
Dude, … you must have been more than just ‘bored’ to see what White has to say …
 
PhilVaz said:
Yeah so anyway, I was extremely bored so I checked out the latest rant on this blog
Click to expand...
. I won’t comment further except to hopefully finish this response. :eek: 😃

Phil PYeah… kinda makes ya wonder why White (and you too TQ) don’t take on a real problem where the Gospel is needed instead of pushing the unbiblical position of eternal security with a view to bashing our most holy faith while souls fall into hell.

Or is it that these others have never been called to salvation in Christ?

Or is the Catholic Church just an easier target?

At least while you guys’re bashing us, guys like Phil here are answering errors and seeking to win souls to Christ.
What’s that Bible verse say? “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise.” (Proverbs 11:30)

Good work Phil. Don’t slack up! 👍
 
Baraq said:
Dude, you seemed confused on what the Reformed position is on election

the Big Box non denom OSAS vs Reformed ‘election’(Dr White is Reformed)

Big Box- people promise themselves salvation
Reformed- God gives them faith for salvation , and promises none can pluck them from his hand
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

big difference huh?

anyways…Dr White questions if those who convert away were actually saved to begin with(not that I share his view- but wanted you to know he wasnt violating the Perseverance of the Saints pillar in Reformed Theology)
Click to expand...
James White is Reformed Baptist; he doesn’t accept padeo baptism nor two sacraments as do many Reformed Churches. R.C. Sproul is also Reformed and accepts padeo baptism. I have a friend who is a United Reformed pastor who practices padeo baptism and has told me that James White isn’t really “Reformed” as John Calvin and the reformers practiced infant baptism and had sacraments.
 
TertiumQuid said:
Catholic Dude-

Don’t blame James White, I wrote the article you are commenting on.

Regards,

James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics
Click to expand...
James,

In reading your article, I found a link on Luther and the canon. Being that I’ve always been puzzled as to what Martin Luther’s criteria was for a book belonging in the canon, I found this quote (which may be only part of Luther’s criteria)…

Luther’s Christocentric Hermeneutic

"Luther scholar Paul Althaus explains, **“[Luther] **allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon.”[14] It is these “distinctions” that are often seen as removal. In these prefaces, Luther explained that he understood the Biblical books in an order based on how clearly “Christ the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone”[15]****](http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther and the canon 2.htm#_edn15) was enunciated. He considered this to be the apostolic standard by which all was evaluated…"

My Reformed pastor friend maintains the same postion as Paul Althaus says Luther did on the “ancient church” that being he recognizes the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church in that time of salvific history in order allow it to recognize the canon (the council of Rome 382 AD being the first authoritative citation of the entire canon). But this to me is hindsite is 20/20. Do you hold to this position also?

Also, Luther’s criteria for the canon (well, this is the only one cited) is that in order for a book to be canonical it has to be based on how clearly “Christ and the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone” was enunciated which made this the standard of the canon. This has always seemed odd to me since “faith alone” is so explicitly denounced, a salvific negative in Scripture (James 2:24)…“not by faith alone” and that books like Hebrews which no honest scholar can say who authored it and the book of Philemon where Paul asks Onesimus’ owner to welcome him back without punishement. These two books alone would seem to disqualify Luther’s criterion for a book being in the canon. Anyway, I just thought I’d pass that by you. 🙂
 
Bishopite said:
James White is Reformed Baptist; he doesn’t accept padeo baptism nor two sacraments as do many Reformed Churches. R.C. Sproul is also Reformed and accepts padeo baptism. I have a friend who is a United Reformed pastor who practices padeo baptism and has told me that James White isn’t really “Reformed” as John Calvin and the reformers practiced infant baptism and had sacraments.
Click to expand...
You can be ‘Reformed’ and fall on either side in the padeobaptism debate, its been a debate for years and will continue. As for the sacraments…What I know of the Reformed Baptists , they believe Baptism is more than just symbolic. I think thats the main difference, and I wouldnt classify him as not ‘reformed’ because of that(thats an insult better suited for falling away PCUSA and UCC Churches)
 
Baraq said:
You can be ‘Reformed’ and fall on either side in the padeobaptism debate, its been a debate for years and will continue. As for the sacraments…What I know of the Reformed Baptists , they believe Baptism is more than just symbolic. I think thats the main difference, and I wouldnt classify him as not ‘reformed’ because of that(thats an insult better suited for falling away PCUSA and UCC Churches)
Click to expand...
I think he is more of a purist in Reformed theology and therefore doesn’t consider anyone who doesn’t follow a strict theology of Calvinism to be outside of the Reformed circle. Anyway, it seems from what I’ve read, Reformed Christians don’t strictly follow Calvin on every Scriptural hermenuetic anyway (i.e., Mary ever-virgin) so I’m sure my pastor friend is entitled to his own opinion about who is “Reformed” and who is not. Thanks again for the information.
 
Bishopite said:
James,

In reading your article, I found a link on Luther and the canon. Being that I’ve always been puzzled as to what Martin Luther’s criteria was for a book belonging in the canon, I found this quote (which may be only part of Luther’s criteria)…

Also, Luther’s criteria for the canon (well, this is the only one cited) is that in order for a book to be canonical it has to be based on how clearly “Christ and the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone” was enunciated which made this the standard of the canon. This has always seemed odd to me since “faith alone” is so explicitly denounced, a salvific negative in Scripture (James 2:24)…“not by faith alone” and that books like Hebrews which no honest scholar can say who authored it and the book of Philemon where Paul asks Onesimus’ owner to welcome him back without punishement. These two books alone would seem to disqualify Luther’s criterion for a book being in the canon. Anyway, I just thought I’d pass that by you. 🙂
Click to expand...
as a side note… I had just posted this on another thread, and nowe include it here:

from www.handsonapologetics.com there is a book coming that might be of interest…

Gary Michuta debated Mr. White on the deuterocanonicals over a year ago… the debate, while probably a boring subject for many, was quite good… and as usual, the Catholic position was strong and effective.

Now comes the book,
**Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: Only a month away!! ** The long anticipated release of the blockbuster apologetic work: *Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible *will be released in early March 2007. It promises to be one of the those rare works that fundamentally changes the direction of Catholic apologetics. Don’t take my word for it. Look what those who have read advanced copies of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger have to say

at the website, a quote from Steve Ray and others
 
TertiumQuid said:
Don’t blame James White, I wrote the article you are commenting on.
Click to expand...
Hi James, thanks for stopping by!

There’s one part that I think needs reworking:
They have gone from Christ’s completed work on the cross that saved His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) to an uncertainty of their state of grace, “…[W]ithout a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions that are necessary for achieving justification” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Rockford Ill.: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974), p.262).
Click to expand...
The statement from Ott is a summary of Trent’s Session 6, Chapter 9, 12, and Canon 16. There may be other pertinent sections.

What Trent clarified as incompatible with the Catholic position is the knowledge of one’s state of grace with “the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error”-- an “absolute and infallible certainty”.

The “certainty of faith” pertains to doctrines de fide credenda– “doctrines contained in the Word of God” (c.f. Doctrinal Commentary). In other words, divine revelation. The “certainty of faith” would apply to the Christological dogmas, for example.

If God specifically reveals that I, Vincent, am in the state of grace, then the proposition, “Vincent is in the state of Grace” would have the character of a doctrine de fide credenda. As I understand it, I would be bound to assent to this revelation with the assent of theological faith. The certainty that this proposition is true would be based directly on God himself, “who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (c.f Vatican I). It follows that my certainty in my state of grace would be “absolute and infallible”.

This explains why Chapter 12 and Canon 16 state that this kind of certainty about one’s knowledge of one’s own state of grace can’t claimed unless special revelation about one’s state of grace had been granted, like in the example I gave above.

In reality, God has not given me a special revelation that I am in the state of Grace. And whether I, Vincent, am in the state of grace is not specifically found in the Word of God. Thus I cannot claim that I have “the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error” --an “absolute and infallible certainty” that I am in the state of Grace.

However.

Trent did not specify that knowing one’s state of grace with lesser degrees of certainty is heretical. I think it is not heretical to say that I have practical or moral certainty that I am in the state of Grace right now. It’s not “absolute and infallible”, but it is still a degree of certainty that I can say, “I am in the state of grace”.

It is with this non-absolute, non-infallible, but still practical degree of certainty that I can, without hestitation, present myself for Communion. As you probably know, a Catholic who’s certain that he’s not in the state of Grace may not receive Communion. Catholics who present themselves for Communion implicitly profess that they know, with a practical degree of certainty, that they are in the state of Grace.

Thus, it would be best to clarify what you mean by Catholic converts going “to an uncertainty of their state of grace”.

Thanks a bunch in advance.
 
Baraq said:
Dude, you seemed confused on what the Reformed position is on election

the Big Box non denom OSAS vs Reformed ‘election’(Dr White is Reformed)

Big Box- people promise themselves salvation
Reformed- God gives them faith for salvation , and promises none can pluck them from his hand
John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

big difference huh?

anyways…Dr White questions if those who convert away were actually saved to begin with(not that I share his view- but wanted you to know he wasnt violating the Perseverance of the Saints pillar in Reformed Theology)
Click to expand...
Actually no, there is no “big difference”…the underlying concept of OSAS is present in each camp.
TertiumQuid said:
Catholic Dude-

Don’t blame James White, I wrote the article you are commenting on.

Regards,

James Swan
Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics
Click to expand...
:o What are you doing on that page? Shouldnt that artile on your own blog.
So what do you have to say regarding my comments?
 
MrS said:
as a side note… I had just posted this on another thread, and nowe include it here:

from www.handsonapologetics.com there is a book coming that might be of interest…

Gary Michuta debated Mr. White on the deuterocanonicals over a year ago… the debate, while probably a boring subject for many, was quite good… and as usual, the Catholic position was strong and effective.

Now comes the book,
**Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: Only a month away!! **The long anticipated release of the blockbuster apologetic work: *Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible *will be released in early March 2007. It promises to be one of the those rare works that fundamentally changes the direction of Catholic apologetics. Don’t take my word for it. Look what those who have read advanced copies of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger have to say

at the website, a quote from Steve Ray and others
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information. 🙂
 
Hey I never saw that hands on apologetics site before…gotta add that to my favorites.

Thanks.
 
James White responded:

LINK.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
Since Mr. White is surfing the CAF again, you might give him a congratulations on the engagement of his son. 👍
 
RyanL said:
James White responded:

LINK.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
Since Mr. White is surfing the CAF again, you might give him a congratulations on the engagement of his son. 👍
Click to expand...
Erm, James Swan responded…? “posted… by James Swan”
 
RyanL said:
James White responded:

LINK.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
Since Mr. White is surfing the CAF again, you might give him a congratulations on the engagement of his son. 👍
Click to expand...
Cool!
Im too busy to respond right now, but what I read didnt seem like much, for example he brushed off the “disqualified” passage I mentioned that was in direct conflict with his assertion disqulification was not possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top