James White Has Completely Lost It [Akin] – Part 2

[AugustineH354]

James White in his AOMIN blog continues his recent “surge” against Francis Beckwith, and Catholics in general. He is able to say pretty much anything in his blog with impunity, for his blog does not allow comments. Just today he posted:

“One thing you will not find in that massive thread is anyone on the Roman Catholic side attempting to engage the issues I myself raised. In fact, for the majority, they have simply accepted the twisted version put out by their co-religionists and have no interest at all in making sure they are at least attacking me truthfully. Not that most of those folks would be up for a serious discussion of those topics anyway, as their leaders try to avoid having to grapple with such things anyway. Better to just leave folks happy…and deceived.”(http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2192 )

White is, of course, referring to the following thread on Jimmy Akins blog:

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/08/james-white-has.html

Now, as with so many popular blogs, the thread is certainly a ‘mixed-bag’, with the “good-bad-and ugly” (plus everything in between) being represented. But the main issue I have against White’s little diatribe concerns this statement: “One thing you will not find in that massive thread is anyone on the Roman Catholic side attempting to engage the issues I myself raised.” This is patently false. One good example is Jonathan Prejean’s “attempt” (which is much more than just an “attempt”). White did not respond to Prejean in the Akin thread, so Prejean moved it over to his own blog (still no response):

http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot.com/2007/08/from-jimmy-akins-combox-re-james-white.html

White also neglected to respond to the “attempts” (once again, much more than just “attempts”) made over at the blog that precipitated the Akin thread:

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/when-did-we-get.html

Prejean, myself, and others made some serious “attempts” to address this claim of White’s:

“The dividing line at the Reformation was the sufficiency of grace, not the necessity of grace. That was the issue then…it remains the issue today.” (STR blog - August 07, 2007 at 10:41.)

An extended treatment of this unsubstantiated claim can be found here:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/

I know that James visits this message board from time-to-time; hopefully he will either stop his unsubstantiated charges, or at the very least, dialogue with those who have been making the “attempts” he pleads for.

Grace and peace,

David

 

[cpayne]

Hi. I have a question about the sufficiency of grace.

Does this phrase mean that God through His grace saves, no matter our response? Or does it mean that God has done all that is necessary for salvation? Or does it mean that God’s grace is sufficient for our salvation, no matter how that salvation is worked out? (I take it this last thought is compatible with Catholic teaching, is it not?) Best regards, cpayne

 

[cpayne]

If Mr. White thinks that the sufficiency of grace is a concept not compatible with CC teaching, then what exactly is it he is referring to?

 

[sandusky]

James White in his AOMIN blog continues his recent “surge” against Francis Beckwith, and Catholics in general. He is able to say pretty much anything in his blog with impunity, for his blog does not allow comments. Just today he posted:

“One thing you will not find in that massive thread is anyone on the Roman Catholic side attempting to engage the issues I myself raised. In fact, for the majority, they have simply accepted the twisted version put out by their co-religionists and have no interest at all in making sure they are at least attacking me truthfully. Not that most of those folks would be up for a serious discussion of those topics anyway, as their leaders try to avoid having to grapple with such things anyway. Better to just leave folks happy…and deceived.”(http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2192 )

White is, of course, referring to the following thread on Jimmy Akins blog:

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/08/james-white-has.html

Now, as with so many popular blogs, the thread is certainly a ‘mixed-bag’, with the “good-bad-and ugly” (plus everything in between) being represented. But the main issue I have against White’s little diatribe concerns this statement: “One thing you will not find in that massive thread is anyone on the Roman Catholic side attempting to engage the issues I myself raised.” This is patently false. One good example is Jonathan Prejean’s “attempt” (which is much more than just an “attempt”). White did not respond to Prejean in the Akin thread, so Prejean moved it over to his own blog (still no response):

http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot.com/2007/08/from-jimmy-akins-combox-re-james-white.html

White also neglected to respond to the “attempts” (once again, much more than just “attempts”) made over at the blog that precipitated the Akin thread:

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/when-did-we-get.html

Prejean, myself, and others made some serious “attempts” to address this claim of White’s:

“The dividing line at the Reformation was the sufficiency of grace, not the necessity of grace. That was the issue then…it remains the issue today.” (STR blog - August 07, 2007 at 10:41.)

An extended treatment of this unsubstantiated claim can be found here:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/

I know that James visits this message board from time-to-time; hopefully he will either stop his unsubstantiated charges, or at the very least, dialogue with those who have been making the “attempts” he pleads for.

Grace and peace,

David

White has an open, and standing invitation to all on CAF to call-in to his Dividing Line program and discuss these issues with him, rather than, as he puts it, “hiding behind a keyboard.”

Give him a call

 

[AugustineH354]

Hi Sandusky,

You wrote:

White has an open, and standing invitation to all on CAF to call-in to his Dividing Line program and discuss these issues with him, rather than, as he puts it, “hiding behind a keyboard.”

Give him a call>>

Me: I am only posting here at CAF in an “attempt” to address certain charges made by James in his blog that just are not true. It does not make sense to me to call into his radio program when the charges concern, and were make, within the blogging paradigm. It is much more logical (and consistent) to me to keep the discussion within the original format, rather than moving it to James’ ‘home playing-field’…right?

Grace and peace,

David

 

[Ani_Ibi]

White has an open, and standing invitation to all on CAF to call-in to his Dividing Line program and discuss these issues with him, rather than, as he puts it, “hiding behind a keyboard.” Give him a call

Given the lack of restraint and boundaries exhibited by some who have been exploiting Dr White’s distress for their own jockeying for position or just plain entertainment, there are some very sane reasons for preferring to address this issue by keyboard rather than by phone or in person.

So bottom line: no.

This is not a Roman circus. There are human souls at stake here. Therefore I will discourage everyone I can from debating the man, until he calms down.

btw, I asked on Part 1 who was going to speak to Pastor Don about Dr White’s intemperance. Any progress in that area? Thank you.

 

[sandusky]

AugustineH354:

Hi Sandusky,

You wrote:

White has an open, and standing invitation to all on CAF to call-in to his Dividing Line program and discuss these issues with him, rather than, as he puts it, “hiding behind a keyboard.”

Give him a call>>

Me: I am only posting here at CAF in an “attempt” to address certain charges made by James in his blog that just are not true. It does not make sense to me to call into his radio program when the charges concern, and were make, within the blogging paradigm. It is much more logical (and consistent) to me to keep the discussion within the original format, rather than moving it to James’ ‘home playing-field’…right?

Grace and peace,

David

Heck no—you have the perfect opportunity to interact personally with White on this issue, an issue which you seem to grasp quite well, given all of the links you have provided.

Call in, tell them who you are, and why you are calling, and I’m certain you will go to the head
of the line.

 

[sandusky]

Ani Ibi:

Given the lack of restraint and boundaries exhibited by some who have been exploiting Dr White’s distress for their own jockeying for position or just plain entertainment, there are some very sane reasons for preferring to address this issue by keyboard rather than by phone or in person.

So bottom line: no.

This is not a Roman circus. There are human souls at stake here. Therefore I will discourage everyone I can from debating the man, until he calms down.

Until he calms down…
Ani Ibi:

btw, I asked on Part 1 who was going to speak to Pastor Don about Dr White’s intemperance. Any progress in that area? Thank you.

Here’s a novel thought :newidea: : why don’t you call Don Fry?

The number is available at the PRBC website.

 

[AugustineH354]

Hi cpayne:

You posted:

Hi. I have a question about the sufficiency of grace.

Does this phrase mean that God through His grace saves, no matter our response? Or does it mean that God has done all that is necessary for salvation? Or does it mean that God’s grace is sufficient for our salvation, no matter how that salvation is worked out? (I take it this last thought is compatible with Catholic teaching, is it not?) Best regards, cpayne>>

Me: Dr. Pohle explains this much better than I can in a quote from his multi-systematic theology that is at this following link that I gave in my first post:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/

Here is a portion of the quote:

EFFICACIOUS GRACE AND MERELY SUFFICIENT GRACE.—By efficacious grace (gratia efficax) we understand that divine assistance which with infallible certainty includes free salutary act. Whether the certainty of its operation results from the physical nature of this particular grace, or from God’s infallible foreknowledge (scientia media), is a question in dispute between Thomists and Molinists.

Merely sufficient grace (gratia mere sufficiens) is that divine assistance whereby God communicates to the human will full power to perform a salutary act (posse) but not the action itself (agere).>>

Grace and peace,

David

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…Call in, tell them who you are, and why you are calling, and I’m certain you will go to the head of the line.

No.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

Boy, did I get here late!

What was the deal with Beckwith?

 

[Gamera]

White has an open, and standing invitation to all on CAF to call-in to his Dividing Line program and discuss these issues with him, rather than, as he puts it, “hiding behind a keyboard.”

Give him a call

If in fact that quotation is correct, that says everything I need to know about this person. The fact that he would accuse somebody who disagrees with him of “hiding,” tells me that he sees debate as a fight rather than a discussion.

No thanks. Life’s too short to waste on nonsense like that. I’ll just keep on reading Catholic materials.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

EFFICACIOUS GRACE AND MERELY SUFFICIENT GRACE.—By efficacious grace (gratia efficax) we understand that divine assistance which with infallible certainty includes free salutary act. Whether the certainty of its operation results from the physical nature of this particular grace, or from God’s infallible foreknowledge (scientia media), is a question in dispute between Thomists and Molinists.

Hi David. Still not completely with you on this. I’ll read the link. But can you give us some examples of folks who received efficacious grace and folks who received sufficient grace? Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

sandusky:

Until he calms down…

I thought you might need a tissue for whatever is causing your eyes to roll up in your head. :tissues:

sandusky:

Here’s a novel thought :newidea: : why don’t you call Don Fry?

Here is an even brighter idea: who do you think Pastor Dan might be less defensive with? Myself or

you?

(Hint: it isn’t me.)

sandusky:

The number is available at the PRBC website.

Well then, waste not a single second more!

I am going to share this perception with you. It occurs to me that some who shall remain nameless are jist-a-itchin’ to see a verbal slug-fest happen real soon. I believe that such an escalation of hostility would be just a barrel of fun for some folks. A regular Festival of Gladiators with a bit of Throwing to the Lions in the intermissions.

But at what cost to the Body of Christ?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

White has an open, and standing invitation to all on CAF to call-in to his Dividing Line program and discuss these issues with him, rather than, as he puts it, “hiding behind a keyboard.”

Give him a call

Who or what is this Minister/Dr. White? Is he important to protestants for some reason?

He can’t be to important for the sola scriptura people, his name doesn’t appear in the bible.

I don’t see what the fuss is all about. Big deal, some self appointed earthly “authority” is telling lies about Christ and his Church, that’s been going on for two thousand years. Christ promised his Church (us) that the gates of hell would not pervail against it. Are we to believe the words of this “White guy” over those of Christ?

No answer needed, the Catholic Church follows Christ in all things. All “self appointed earthly authority types”, their opinions will fall away in the eye’s of God.

 

[Teflon93]

White has an open, and standing invitation to all on CAF to call-in to his Dividing Line program and discuss these issues with him, rather than, as he puts it, “hiding behind a keyboard.”

Give him a call

White has an open, standing invitation to post right here.

If he’s as brilliant and learned as you say, why’s he hiding on a program where he controls the phone and a blog where he doesn’t allow comments?

If Daniel could go to the lion’s den, why is White hanging out on his home turf?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cpayne:

Hi. I have a question about the sufficiency of grace…

Yikes! You are a trickster, Uncle cp! (Uncle cp is an Aquinas scholar for those who missed the elbow to the rib.) Didn’t Uncle Aquinas talk about sufficient grace and efficacious grace? I was going to stumble across this sooner or later, regardless of my having a memory like a spaghetti collander.

I dug up Fr Most on this. This paper is full of goodies.

Thomist position [but not Thomas’s position]: There are two kinds of actual graces, sufficient and efficacious. If God sends a sufficient grace, it gives the full and complete power to do something good; but it is infallibly certain we will not do good, but will sin. If He sends an efficacious grace, it is infallibly sure we will do good…

… the efficacious grace is the application of the sufficient grace. Compare a fire which has the full power to cook food, but never cooks anything unless a cook applies the fire to the food. So, if God sends me a sufficient grace, what can I do to get the efficacious grace? The Thomists offer three answers:

(1) If He sends a sufficient grace, and I do not
resist it, I get the efficacious grace. BUT: To nonresist a
sufficient grace takes an efficacious grace of nonresistance. So no solution…

(2) If He sends a sufficient grace, and I pray, I get the efficacious grace. BUT: To pray takes an efficacious
grace of prayer. Again, no solution.

(3) They say that God can and often does deny the
application – without which a man cannot do good-- for a mere “inculpable inadvertence”… To be deprived of efficacious grace, it is not always required that we first desert God by sin… on our part, there is always
some impediment to efficacious grace, not by way of fault but by way of inconsideration or some other defect…
Because of this defective consideration [in the human intellect] because of this voluntary defect - which is not yet a sin…God can refuse a man efficacious grace.

Ani wants grace.

Position of St. Thomas himself: in CG 3:159 he says: "Since this is in the power of free will [namely] to impede or not to impede the reception of grace, not wrongly is it charged as a fault against him who sets up
an impediment to the reception of grace.

For God, so far as is in Him, is ready to give grace to all…but they alone are deprived of grace who set up an impediment to grace in themselves."

So St. Thomas does teach that we really can resist, or really can omit resistance…

To say God would deprive a man of that without
which he cannot help sinning means the salvific will is at zero, or close to zero. This is in contrast to the actual power of the salvific will as shown:

a) The Father accepted a price of redemption that is
infinite, since it came from the work of an Infinite, Divine
Person. So He bound Himself to make grace available without limit…

b) Love can be measured by the obstacles it can
overcome in trying to bring well-being and happiness to the beloved. Christ’s love for us overcame an obstacle that was of measureless difficulty and suffering to make eternal life, and all grace available to us…

In the ordinary mode: God sends me a grace which, with no help from me, causes two things: it causes me to see something as good (cf. 2 Cor 3:5), it makes me well disposed toward it.

At this juncture where I could reject the grace, if I merely
make no decision against it, then grace continues in its course, and “works in me both the will and the doing (cf. Phil 2:13).”

However, in phase 2, after the omission of a contrary decision, then two things happen in parallel: first, grace works in me both the will and the doing, as we said; second, I am cooperating with grace by virtue of power being received at the same instant from grace.

[SIGN]Power![/SIGN]

Comments: 1) After grace has caused the two effects, I do not have the power to make a decision to accept (Phil 2.13: it would be a good decision). I do have the power to make no decision against it.

Ani is happy.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

White has an open, standing invitation to post right here.

If he’s as brilliant and learned as you say, why’s he hiding on a program where he controls the phone and a blog where he doesn’t allow comments?

If Daniel could go to the lion’s den, why is White hanging out on his home turf?

Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus wants His Church to prosper in unity? And therefore He has provided Dr White, Dr Beckwith, Mr Akin, and ourselves the sufficient grace to lay down our differences and reconcile? And if we do not resist this sufficient grace then efficacious grace will surely follow? And we will be reconciled?

 

[sandusky]

White has an open, standing invitation to post right here.

If he’s as brilliant and learned as you say, why’s he hiding on a program where he controls the phone and a blog where he doesn’t allow comments?

If Daniel could go to the lion’s den, why is White hanging out on his home turf?

You’re not thinking clearly; given the nature of this medium the result would be chaos; one needs only to look in on Akin’s blog concerning this to see that.

One on one on the phone; can’t beat it.

 

[Teflon93]

Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus wants His Church to prosper in unity? And therefore He has provided Dr White, Dr Beckwith, Mr Akin, and ourselves the sufficient grace to lay down our differences and reconcile? And if we do not resist this sufficient grace then efficacious grace will surely follow? And we will be reconciled?

That would be nice.

Does White give any indication of interest in Christian unity OR Christian charity?