James White on Lk 1:28 and Kecharitomene

[Canto]

The angel addressed Mary as “highly favored,”

If the Angel wanted to say that Mary was highly favoured he could have easily done so. This also begs the question of how highly? Instead a word used nowhere else in the whole entire Bible or Greek culture/society becomes God’s very name for Mary and Mary alone.

charitoo - the root - means to fill with grace. Most Protestant Bibles seem to note (all be it in the footnote or margin) that it means endued/endowed with grace. The King James offers ‘much grace’

Some who read highly favoured in their Bibles understand the favour in the English definition and not the Greek idea of grace.

Being a perfect passive participle Mary was filled with grace sometime in the past. Sacred Tradition (2 Thes 2:15 etc) says at her conception - which unless God woke up one day and thought “hmmmm?” seems most logical. Mary reamined in this state of grace and surley if she had have lost such a state the scriptures would mention it - pretty big thing.

So her whole life she was filled with grace - So how can a person filled with grace their whole life have sinned?

Now arguments about the perfect tense, and the verb being intrinsic point to not just a little bit, but a fullness of grace - hence full of grace.

The ancient Arabic, Aramaic and Latin transaltions for example and even Tyndale and Coverdale render Kecharitomene as full of grace.

Hope this helps. Dmar198’s post was fab

 

[onenow1]

HI, I think what is very interesting, the greeting of the angel starting with full of grace, highly favored one], not her name is; I think the writer’s intent, he is trying to convey an important fact here, I don’t recall anywhere else in scripture with this type of greeting ,although I could be wrong.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Truthstalker]

So, I’m currently in a debate on the meaning of the Greek word kecharitomene (“full of grace”) in Lk 1:28 and the implications for Marian dogma. My opponent recently provided the following argument by James White:
However, if we look at Mr. Keating’s presentation, it seems clear that he is basing his interpretation not primarily upon the lexical meaning of the word caritow, but upon the form it takes in Luke 1:28, that being the perfect passive participle, kecaritomene. Note that Keating alleges that the “Greek indicates a perfection of grace.” He seems to be playing on the perfect tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek “indicates a perfection of grace.” First, participles primarily derive their tense aspect from the main verb of the sentence. In this case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in what is in actuality simply a greeting. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.) What are we to do with the perfect tense of the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something is (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament pg. 202), but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34 (“Come, you who are blessed by my Father…”), 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (“For we know, brothers loved by God…”), and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord…”) emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would argue that in Matthew 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a “perfection of blessedness that indicates that they had this perfection throughout their life, for a perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively” (to borrow from Mr. Keating’s presentation). The application of Keating’s thoughts to any of the above passages results in foolishness. Hence, it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary “must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace’ or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way,” he is, in point of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid. Therefore, Madrid’s statement, “This is a recognition of her sinless state,” falls for lack of support. The angel addressed Mary as “highly favored,” for, as he himself said, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.”
You can read White’s entire article here. At any rate, if I am understanding White correctly, his argument can be restated like this:
If Mt 25:34; 1 Thes 1:4; and 2 Thes 2:13 all have the same perfect passive tense as Lk 1:28, why don’t we understand those verses the same way we understand Lk 1:28, as indicating a permanent state of fullness, completion, or perfection of the verb in question?
Have I properly understood his argument? How would you respond to this argument?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

You might consider that he could be right on this point. We all have a lot to learn from each other. Really. You might consider that he has some things you should listen to. He may understand a verse of Scripture better than anyone in the RCC you can find? It is possible.

What does it do to your faith if he is correct? What does it do to your Mariology?

 

[dmar198]

a word used nowhere else in the whole entire Bible or Greek culture/society becomes God’s very name for Mary and Mary alone.

To show off my knowledge of Bible trivia…

“does not a word surpass a good gift? Both are to be found in a gracious man.” - Sirach 18:17

The word “gracious” = “kecharitomeno” in Greek, which is the same as “kecharitomene” (“full of grace” in Luke 1:28) except in masculine form. Two points to note when talking with Protestants:

(1) It is not used as a title, as it is in Luke 1:28, so it does not carry the same import; and
(2) Most translations carry this word as “gracious,” including the King James; but when it is applied to Mary, they switch to “highly favored.” Bias against Catholicism maybe?

The same word is used in Eph. 1:4-6, where it is in the past tense (“echaritosen,”) and is used to express the idea that God has given us the grace that enables us to be blameless. Well, Luke 1:28 says that Mary had this grace in perfection, in fullness; so how can she not have been sinless in God’s sight?

God bless!
-Dmar198

 

[Canto]

“does not a word surpass a good gift? Both are to be found in a gracious man.” - Sirach 18:17

The word “gracious” = “kecharitomeno” in Greek,

Had forgotten about this one.

Out of intrest, if a Protestant were to bring up the Sirach verse against the Catholic view of 1:28, one could simply note that it is a translation as Sirach was written in Hebrew and they wouldn’t even consider the Hebrew insipred anyway.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

So, I’m currently in a debate on the meaning of the Greek word kecharitomene (“full of grace”) in Lk 1:28 and the implications for Marian dogma. My opponent recently provided the following … But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek “indicates a perfection of grace.”

There are two things here, the perfect tense of a verb – and the fact that it is being used as a participle. Now, I am not “trained” in Greek – but I do study it (Mostly because I have made it a practice to check the scholarship of those I read – I have seen too many bad arguments to trust anyone.)
I would recommend you check what I say as well.

First, participles primarily derive their tense aspect from the main verb of the sentence.

A participle is a verb being changed in usage to a noun or adjective.
eg: The “jumped fence”, a “jumping” rope, etc.
One tense is implicit in the participle itself; another tense is explicit in the verb of the sentence. His statement, whether true or false statistically, says little about whether or not it will apply in this particular case.

In this case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in what is in actuality simply a greeting.

In the greeting portion “χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη” there are two words – not one. One is a verb being used in the vocative – rejoice – the other is not.

Here, it is well known that the rejoicing is a formality; seldom used in scripture and not meant literally. It is equivalent to Hello, or Hail, but quite formal for a scriptural passage. Just as Hail was spoken to many of the Roman emperor’s after Caesar’s time it is not complete by itself. The NAME or TITLE of a person follows it.

If the perfect participle κεχαριτωμενη was meant to be vocative (greeting calling) in and of itself, the epsilon ending would be appended to it – as you can see it is not. The epsilon is tied to the rejoice (“χαιρε”).
So the main action is to “greet” and what follows must be a name or title.

If I wanted to Greet Peter, (informally), I would simply say “πετρε”.

Jacob became Israel, Sarah became Sarai, and here the angel does not use Miriam’s given name – but instead re-names her.
Therefore, the name indicates something about her which is unique to her role. It is in the perfect tense, which means her role was established in the past, and has lasting consequences in the present and future.

It is a greeting, but not of a simple woman. If it were that, the angel could and (ought to) have used her given name rather than renaming her.

(The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.) What are we to do with the perfect tense of the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something is

That’s oversimplification of what the church did, but hey – let’s examine these “is” examples.

(see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament pg. 202),

No thanks, just show the examples and I’ll compare.

but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34 (“Come, you who are blessed by my Father…”),

In the passage shown; just read the English first, and it will be obvious how momentus an occasion this is. Those entering heaven are allowed in permanently, perfectly, and forever. But in the passage cited, there are distinct differences as well.
Preceding the perfect participle is a word which represents the people;
“οι ευ-λογη-μεν-οι”
That is, the participle itself is not their name or title. The participle is acting as an adjective to another word and is explicitly tied to “of God”

This does not match the grammar of Luke 1:26 for there is no noun before the perfect participle to modify! There is a vocative greeting which explains the sense of what follows it – not the other way around.

1 Thessalonians 1:4 (“For we know, brothers loved by God…”),

Same issue here, this isn’t a title, or a name change – the word brothers is being modified by the perfect participle.

and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord…”)

Same here … nothing new.

–more–

 

[Huiou_Theou]

… emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would argue that in Matthew 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a "perfection of blessedness

There is a subtle problem that will be obvious once pointed out.
In the first passage to Mary, her title is of a perfection which is within her, for it is her entitlement and naming by God. In all these other passages, there is a separate and explicit emanation of the blessing.
Eg: beloved of God. Scripture speaks of Jesus saying “love your enemies” therefore while he was on earth he loved all his elect even while they were enemies. The statements are theologically interpreted, not lexically. White is accusing of bias hypocritically.

The application of Keating’s thoughts to any of the above passages results in foolishness.

Obviously his logic of singularity would not apply to groups of people – he had no reason to apply it to those other passages. Do you have another example of Mary’s greeting to another person even?

Hence, it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary "must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence … but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text.

And Mr. White says it is just a greeting. BUT:
When someone says “Mr. President”; to the president of the United States – it is not a “mere” greeting as Mr. Whites logic would make of it.
If Mr. White’s logic can reduce the greeting to Mary to a “hello” highly favored one – he might as well represent the greeting of the president as “how hi are ya” rather than “hi how are ya”. It is about as much a demotion of the meaning and respect of the title as one can get.

Mr. Keetings particular belief in the extensive meaning of “Hail! She-who-has-been-perfectly-endowed-with-grace” is no different in my eyes than the standard extensive reading of Jesus’ last word on the cross as “finished” in Greek which I believe Mr. White holds.
If he wishes to disprove the permanence of Mary’s grace, will he also withdraw the permanence of Jesus’ sacrifice?

There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation … for, as he himself said, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.”

It does support their position, in that the word is a title – not a loosely attached adjectival phrase. The argument itself must hinge on the meaning of the title – not that other perfect participles which are in a different context and grammatical structure prove or disprove Mr. Keetings observations.

I am forced to reject Mr. White’s position as at least hypocritical, and at most fabrication. People trained in Greek are susceptible to over and underplaying the meaning of scripture – and the quotes shown don’t impress me as particularly compelling.

If Mt 25:34; 1 Thes 1:4; and 2 Thes 2:13 all have the same perfect passive tense as Lk 1:28, why don’t we understand those verses the same way we understand Lk 1:28, as indicating a permanent state of fullness, completion, or perfection of the verb in question?Have I properly understood his argument? How would you respond to this argument?

We do. God loves all of us, permanently – for he is Love. His sacrifice has changed all of us – even those who reject the love God. These other passages are simply talking about God’s love for us, whereas in the passage in Luke – the Angel is speaking of Mary herself. That is, as the angels recognize her in the past, present, and future.

As a note: I haven’t read Mr. Keetings work, and am not sure how he presented his arguments – I suspect, from the few times I have heard him years ago, that most of his argument is probably being excised. I don’t know to what extent I would agree with or disagree his arguments at this time – but I’m sure he has a case.

Pax T

 

[WilliamAlbrecht]

In order to fully understand any passage we must understand the context. We cannot simply see a word and then since it appears in another location completely dismiss a certain passage from carrying theological weight. As such, in the WHOLE Bible, KECHARITOMENE is ONLY used in the titular form for Mary. Mary is called, “HAVING BEEN GRACED”, or “FULL OF GRACE”. Either is a viable translation, if we are clear as to why Mary is “FULL” of Grace. I prefer the translation, “HAVING BEEN GRACED”, or “woman who has been graced”, sicne the gender is that of the feminine. Whereas we may find the usage of this term in other places, it is ONLY used in the titular form for Mary in all of Scripture, even including that of the Septuagint. This is all that is needed from the Catholic point of view in order to prove the uniqueness of this address and in the role that Mary plays in Holy Writ. I think much more would be needed if one were to try and prove a certain doctrine from that passage alone. I think attempting to use this single passage to try and prove any Marian Dogma would be irresponsible. We have loads of passages in the Bible that highlight the role of Mary in the Christian world. We have even more early Fathers, Councils, Inscriptions that show us just what Christ has revealed to us about his Mother.

 

[Danny69]

Looks like Mr.White and his followers have taken notice:

aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3405

 

[rpavich]

I’ve read this thread from the beginning, including the assertion in the original post and truthfully, I’m having a hard time understanding one thing.

How does one get from “having been favored by God” perfect participle;

Perfect: Action that occurred in the past having results in the present with emphasis on the present state.

With the Roman Catholic idea that Mary was sinless throughout her life? (did I have that right?)

What is the connecting point in scripture that I’m missing?

Is this an assumption that’s being brought to the text?

 

[inkaneer]

I’ve read this thread from the beginning, including the assertion in the original post and truthfully, I’m having a hard time understanding one thing.

How does one get from “having been favored by God” perfect participle;

Perfect: Action that occurred in the past having results in the present with emphasis on the present state.

With the Roman Catholic idea that Mary was sinless throughout her life? (did I have that right?)

What is the connecting point in scripture that I’m missing?

Is this an assumption that’s being brought to the text?

It is not what you are missing. It is what you are adding. Your protestant mindset of sola scriptura is showing by demanding an answer from scripture. Catholicism is a Church, not a sola scriptura denomination. Sola scriptura is a failed doctrine of man that is unscriptural. See 2 Thess 2:15 where Paul commands the Thessalonians to hold onto the Oral Tradition as well as the written. That one verse penned almost 2,000 years ago is as inerrant today as it was then for if God is immutable then so is His Word. Sola scriptura was the response of people who rejected church authority and in its place offered private interpretation of the scriptures. And as a direct result protestantism has divided and redivided into over 40,000 denominations as stated by the famed protestant institution the Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary.

It has been the constant Oral Teaching (Tradition) NOTE the capital “T”] of the church from the very beginning that Mary was created sinless [spotless, without stain, untainted, etc.] and remained that way throughout her life. It has also been the constant teaching that Mary had no other children than Jesus and that she was bodily assumed into heaven. There is absolutely no evidence of any teaching in the early church to the contrary. In addition, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who guides the church into all truth, it is bound by the church in accord with the binding and loosening powers given to the church in Matthew 16:18-19 that she was created sinless and remained that way her entire life on earth.

 

[rpavich]

Ok…just so you know I’m not being rude when I say:

“Ok…so the answer is; there is no connection”

I understand, and I’m not taking a dig at you; you’ve fully answered what I was wondering about.

 

[dmar198]

I’ve read this thread from the beginning, including the assertion in the original post and truthfully, I’m having a hard time understanding one thing.

How does one get from “having been favored by God” perfect participle;

Perfect: Action that occurred in the past having results in the present with emphasis on the present state.

With the Roman Catholic idea that Mary was sinless throughout her life? (did I have that right?)

What is the connecting point in scripture that I’m missing?

Is this an assumption that’s being brought to the text?

Most Catholic apologists do not try to gather the Immaculate Conception from this word alone; Karl Keating is pretty much alone there, for he says Mary can only be called “full of grace” if she was ALWAYS full of grace. I say that that is a biiiig stretch. So do most apologists.

But most apologists do see this as a key passage in understanding Mary’s total sinlessness, they just get it in a different way; if they try to gather the Immaculate Conception from this passage at all, they don’t get it from the word “kecharitomene” alone, (as Karl Keating tried to do,) but from the word AND the fact that it is used as a title, expressing something about Mary’s character; i.e that by nature she is full of grace, and therefore does not have the sin nature that the rest of us have inherited.

From my perspective, that too is a bit of a stretch; so here is how I view it: the word, being in the perfect tense, implies a perfection of grace or favor. (That is why the perfect tense is called perfect: because it implies a completion of the verb, in this case, of God’s favor or grace.) Yet God would not completely favor Mary, nor would He see her as completely full of grace, if she was at all sinful; for if she had any sin on her, then He would not favor that part of her, and thus His favor or grace would not have been complete in her. So the title implies that Mary was sinless at that point; that is all.

Can we connect this directly to the Immaculate Conception? I don’t think so; the Immaculate Conception would have to be assumed.

It is the same as when Christ says, “Which of you accuses me of sin?” (John 8:46) That doesn’t prove that He was ALWAYS sinless; it is evidence for His lifelong sinlessness only because if He was always sinless, we would expect Him to say something like this sometimes. In the same way, Luke 1:28 is evidence of Mary’s Immaculate Conception merely because it proves that she was sinless at that point, as she would have been, if she was immaculately conceived. Her title “full of grace” is a consequence of her Immaculate Conception, and for there to be a consequence of something, then that something must have preceded it.

I hope that helps. God bless!
-Dmar198

 

[rpavich]

dmar198,

Quote:

being in the perfect tense, implies a perfection of grace or favor.

this is the definition of the Greek perfect tense:
The verb tense used by the writer to describe a completed verbal action that occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result that exists in the present (in relation to the writer). The emphasis of the perfect is not the past action so much as it is as such but the present “state of affairs” resulting from the past action.

And from BDAG:
χαριτόω
*to cause to be the recipient of a benefit, bestow favor on, favor highly, bless, *

I don’t see the connection with the definition of the perfect tense and your going to “implies a perfection of grace or favor”…where’s the connection?

Likewise, I don’t see any connection from “cause to be the recipient of a benefit, to bestow favor on or highly bless” with the idea that Mary was sinless.

As the other poster said; it seems that this comes from outside the text of scripture. And while I’m not going to argue what “traditions” mean now, and what they meant then…it would seem that the answer is still “this doesn’t come from the text itself and Karl Keating is reaching”

 

[Churchmouse]

In order to fully understand any passage we must understand the context. We cannot simply see a word and then since it appears in another location completely dismiss a certain passage from carrying theological weight. As such, in the WHOLE Bible, KECHARITOMENE is ONLY used in the titular form for Mary. Mary is called, “HAVING BEEN GRACED”, or “FULL OF GRACE”. Either is a viable translation, if we are clear as to why Mary is “FULL” of Grace. I prefer the translation, “HAVING BEEN GRACED”, or “woman who has been graced”, sicne the gender is that of the feminine. Whereas we may find the usage of this term in other places, it is ONLY used in the titular form for Mary in all of Scripture, even including that of the Septuagint. This is all that is needed from the Catholic point of view in order to prove the uniqueness of this address and in the role that Mary plays in Holy Writ. I think much more would be needed if one were to try and prove a certain doctrine from that passage alone. I think attempting to use this single passage to try and prove any Marian Dogma would be irresponsible. We have loads of passages in the Bible that highlight the role of Mary in the Christian world. We have even more early Fathers, Councils, Inscriptions that show us just what Christ has revealed to us about his Mother.

A “titular form”??? I’m sorry but it seems you’re stretching it quite a bit. There is nothing “titular” in the passage.

CM

 

[alaindelong]

You can read White’s entire article here. At any rate, if I am understanding White correctly, his argument can be restated like this:

If Mt 25:34; 1 Thes 1:4; and 2 Thes 2:13 all have the same perfect passive tense as Lk 1:28, why don’t we understand those verses the same way we understand Lk 1:28, as indicating a permanent state of fullness, completion, or perfection of the verb in question?

Have I properly understood his argument? How would you respond to this argument?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

I think Keating needs to respond to White. Regarding Matthew 25:31-46 this is our final judgement.
Of course this scripture has to be understood with a certain degree of finality and completeness. However we can also apply these verses to our own spiritual journey. We learn today that Matthew 25:31-46 is all about sins of omission. As Catholics we believe that salvation encompasses Faith but also love or good works. When Jesus proclaims that I was hungry and you gave me no food, thirsty and you gave me no drink etc…
In as much as you didn’t do it to the least of these my brethren you didn’t do it to me. When we fail to see the face of Christ in every suffering soul who is in need of our true Christian charity, we are leaving Christ unattended. What happens to the goats on Jesus’ left? This is the greatest biblical verse that refutes justification by faith alone, Sola fide.

 

[dmar198]

this is the definition of the Greek perfect tense:
The verb tense used by the writer to describe a completed verbal action that occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result that exists in the present (in relation to the writer). The emphasis of the perfect is not the past action so much as it is as such but the present “state of affairs” resulting from the past action. …
I don’t see the connection with the definition of the perfect tense and your going to “implies a perfection of grace or favor”…where’s the connection?

You get from the perfect tense to perfection of grace because that is what the perfect tense is meant for: it implies completion of the verb, in this case, of God’s grace. God’s grace was “complete” in Mary; He “completely” favored her. That is why we call the perfect tense perfect: because it implies completion of the verb. Like when I say, “I have built the building.” That’s perfect tense, and it implies that the building is completed and done. In the same way, Mary is described as having been graced in the perfect tense, which implies that God’s grace was completed in Mary.

And from BDAG:
χαριτόω
*to cause to be the recipient of a benefit, bestow favor on, favor highly, bless, * …
Likewise, I don’t see any connection from “cause to be the recipient of a benefit, to bestow favor on or highly bless” with the idea that Mary was sinless.

BDAG defines the root word of kecharitomene, “charito;” it doesn’t deal with the perfect stem (“ke”) at all. It is correct that “charito” means simply that Mary was endowed with grace; but the Greek says more, it says that Mary was “kecharito,” which means that she was COMPLETELY endowed with grace, and THAT implies her sinlessness.

I hope that helps. God bless!
-Dmar198

 

[rpavich]

This is the greatest biblical verse that refutes justification by faith alone, Sola fide.

Respectfully, it doesn’t refute anything.

Protestants would say yes! We do those things…but are they NECESSARY to be justified?

No…the basis for our justification is Christ.

So…refute?
No…

“the way you see it”

Yes.

 

[dmar198]

A “titular form”??? I’m sorry but it seems you’re stretching it quite a bit. There is nothing “titular” in the passage.

CM

How about the title “kecharitomene”? If a title isn’t titular, what is? The angel doesn’t greet her as “Mary” but as “kecharitomene,” full of grace. That is a title, and it tells us something important about Mary: she was God’s chosen vessel, sanctified for the role which she was to play. I.e., she was sinless.

 

[po18guy]

You might consider that he could be right on this point. We all have a lot to learn from each other. Really. You might consider that he has some things you should listen to. He may understand a verse of Scripture better than anyone in the RCC you can find? It is possible.

What does it do to your faith if he is correct? What does it do to your Mariology?

First, James White’s position requires less faith, rather than more. It is belief in less, rather than more. It shows a belief in a grossly simpliifed Gospel, a “New Gospel” if you will. It demonstrates a belief in a God who has been fashioned for the preferences of men, rather than the reverse. It reveals a strict purpose of being against God’s revealed truth of the ages. It is based on a selected use of language, while ignoring the greater context of the complete Gospel message. It denies the entire history of the Church, as well as the beliefs and teachings of the greatest theologians, Saints, martyrs and other leaders in Christian faith. It is a viewpoint that has, at its very basis, a negativity toward established doctrine.

Mr. White clearly holds himself to be superior in intellect, reasoning ability,and prophetic gift, if not in faith, to each and every one of these early Church fathers:

Alexander of Alexandria [SAINT]
Alexander of Lycopolis
Ambrose (340-397) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Aphrahat/Aphraates (c. 280-367)
Archelaus
Aristides the Philosopher
Arnobius
Athanasius [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Athenagoras
Augustine of Hippo [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Bardesanes (154-222)
Barnabas [SAINT]
Basil the Great [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Caius
Clement of Alexandria [SAINT]
Clement of Rome [SAINT]
Commodianus
Cyprian of Carthage [SAINT]
Cyril of Jerusalem [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Dionysius of Rome [SAINT]
Dionysius the Great
Ephraim the Syrian (306-373) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340)
Gennadius of Marseilles
Gregory the Great, Pope (c. 540-604) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Gregory Nazianzen [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Gregory of Nyssa [SAINT]
Gregory Thaumaturgus [SAINT]
Hermas
Hilary of Poitiers [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Hippolytus [SAINT]
Ignatius of Antioch [SAINT]
Irenaeus of Lyons [SAINT]
Jerome [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
John of Damascus [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)
John Chrysostom [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Julius Africanus
Justin Martyr [SAINT]
Lactantius
Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461) [SAINT] [DOCTOR]
Malchion
Mar Jacob (452-521)
Mathetes
Methodius
Minucius Felix
Moses of Chorene (c. 400-c. 490)
Novatian
Origen
Pamphilus [SAINT]
Papias [SAINT]
Peter of Alexandria [SAINT]
Polycarp [SAINT]
Rufinus
Socrates Scholasticus (c. 379-c. 450)
Sozomen (c. 375-c. 447)
Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420)
Tatian
Tertullian
Theodoret
Theodotus
Theophilus
Venantius
Victorinus [SAINT]
Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450) [SAINT]

Each of these was absolutely convinced of the truth of the Church - but not James White.

James White also apparently believes that he is superior to each of the following Doctors of the Church:

St. Albert
St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Anselm
St. Anthony of Padua
St. Augustine
St. Bede, the Venerable
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
St. Bonaventure
St. Catherine of Siena
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Francis de Sales
St. Isidore
St. John of the Cross
St. Lawrence of Brindisi
St. Peter Canisius
St. Peter Chrysologus
St. Peter Damian
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Teresa of Avila
St. Therese of Lisieux
St. Thomas Aquinas

Each of these was absolutely convinced of the truth of the Church - but not James White.

Rather, why don’t you consider that the oldest organization on earth might just have it right? Why must the Church which Christ founded always be wrong? Do you think this is our private Church? Do you think this is a competition? No! It is Christ’s desire for us to be in Him. He gave a Church to the entire world, for all remaining time. We have joined her after being convinced of her truth, and after coming to faith through the grace of the Lord.