James White

[RedHotForJesus]

PhilVaz:

Speaking of debates, anybody in the New York area can tell us what happened at the recent Michuta vs. White OT canon debate? I gotta know whether I should toss 1 and 2 Maccabees.

Phil P

I was in attendance at the debate and did not feel as though Mr. Michuta presented a positive case for including the Apocrypha as canon. His presentation was well prepared but I did not think he was able to make a cogent response to several of James White’s questions. Especially problematic was his response that Trent had “passed over” the issue regarding the differences between the differences in the canon as defined at Hippo/Catharge.

The most problematic aspect of Mr. Michuta’s presentation though was his answer to James’ questions on the errors found in Judith. I do not think that a debate of this scale deserved a circular argument in response. His reasoning that this was the same tactic an atheist uses in questioning the Bible neglects the fact that we can make sound replies to other “apparent errors” brought up by an Atheist, but he was either unable or unwilling to reconcile the errors pointed out by James White.

I think that Mr. Michuta only served to promote the view that since James White (taking the negative position) did not have positive regections by a mass of writers (which he would not waste time on with a negative position to defend) that it was justified in viewing the Apocryphal books as “Scripture” despite make a positive case for their inclusion.

 

[PhilVaz]

RedHot << The most problematic aspect of Mr. Michuta’s presentation though was his answer to James’ questions on the errors found in Judith. I do not think that a debate of this scale deserved a circular argument in response. >>

Thanks for the comment from a witness to the debate. Sounds like another one I need to get (I get them all eventually anyway )

As for errors in Judith or whatever deuterocanon book, while I haven’t studied those “errors” in depth, if you look at any number of atheist sites, they find “hundreds” of errors in the hebrew canon (i.e. the 39 books). But of course I’ll agree most of those have good answers, some it’s a matter of interpretation or translation. Check out the www.infidels.org, they find plenty of “contradictions.”

Though I don’t have the debate, the key issue it seems to me is what did Jesus and his apostles use as their Old Testament, and what did the majority of Church Fathers use, etc. I’ll have to get that debate.

I have the shorter 1993 debate on the OT canon with White/Matatics that AOMIN graciously sent a while ago. White quoting Beckwith, Matatics quoting JND Kelly and referring to A.C. Sundberg, the Lutheran who argues for the deuteros.

Sundberg on the OT canon available here

Phil P

 

[Cephas]

Sadly, I have to agree with Redhot.

Mr. Michuta did seem way under prepared for Mr. White.
And as Redhot mentioned, he never really answered Mr. White’s questions, atleast not to the satisfaction of many in attendance (myself included). Nevertheless, the Deuterocanonical are Scripture, not apochraphal, Redhot.

 

[ERS83]

Hello,
I haven’t listened to any of the debates between James White and Catholic apologists (I plan to do so soon). When I say debate I specifically mean a moderated debate where each person is allotted an even amount of time, and a cross-examination: a professional debate. Now, I did listen to the Bible Answer man program with Jimmy Akin and James White, and, in my opinion its not correct to classify and promote it as a debate. It was more of a loosely defined discussion that was interrupted by commercial breaks, callers, and Hank Hanegraaff. First, there wasn’t equal airtime, despite Hank’s equitable efforts. Second, the topics were sporadic and weren’t clearly defined. I enjoyed the program, but it was far from a debate in the academic sense.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Now, I did listen to the Bible Answer man program with Jimmy Akin and James White, and, in my opinion its not correct to classify and promote it as a debate. >>

Ok, if that’s not a debate, then the Martin-Pacwa on Ankerberg was never a debate, White’s “debate” with Gail Riplinger on the KJV was not a debate, no radio debates are debates.

The infamous Copleston-Russell “debate” on the existence of God was not a debate. It took place on radio in 1948.

Sorry, these are all debates. But there are differences between the formal ones and the non-formal ones. Radio debates are debates, and normally more exciting ones at that.

The 1992 Bahnsen-Matatics debate on KKLA was indeed a debate. Sorry, have to disagree! Debate, discussion, exchange, whatever your terminology. When its two people disagreeing over a topic going back and forth, its a debate!

Akin 8, White 2, the 1995 BAM so-called “debate”, and this “judgment” still stands.

Phil P

 

[Angelica]

BobCatholic:

Sorry! My bad.

whomps himself with a pillow

That looks like fun!

whomps Bob on the head with a pillow
whomps Bob on the back with a pillow

 

[Ric]

Tman11787:

Hi All,

I had the opportunity to catch Tim Staples on CA a few days ago and was very impressed. Anyway, I wanted to explore his work further lead me to search the web and I came across the work of Dr. James White, whom I take a prolific writer and sharp anti-Catholic. **Wow! ** What did we ever do to him?

What’s his story, and can I find out more about where he’s interacted with other good Catholic apologists?

Thanks.

Yours in Christ,
Tman

You can go right to Jim’s site and listen to most (if not all) of the debates at: aomin.org/

 

[RedHotForJesus]

PhilVaz:

As for errors in Judith or whatever deuterocanon book, while I haven’t studied those “errors” in depth, if you look at any number of atheist sites, they find “hundreds” of errors in the hebrew canon (i.e. the 39 books). But of course I’ll agree most of those have good answers, some it’s a matter of interpretation or translation. Check out the www.infidels.org, they find plenty of “contradictions.”

Though I don’t have the debate, the key issue it seems to me is what did Jesus and his apostles use as their Old Testament, and what did the majority of Church Fathers use, etc. I’ll have to get that debate.

Phil P

Phil,

I agree that there are many issues raised by unbelievers that, if are looked at in a more unbiased manner, can be harmonized. The problem was that Mr. Michuta was unable to relate the character of the alleged errors in Judith to a alleged error of similiar type in the agreed upon canon.

It seems to me (a protestant who is a former jew and has never been involved in any kind of ministry dealing with the RC church) that one of the criteria for discerning the true canon is it’s consistency with the rest of revealed Scripture, and to not hold that all books must be held to that standard before declaring them as “Scripture” does Christianity a diservice.

In other words, the question should not be answerd as “well, we know Judith is Scripture and so any errors must not be ‘real errors’ since Scripture is infallible”, but should be “if Judith does contain demonstratable errors, then its status as Scripture should be called into question because we know that anything containing ‘true errors’ cannot be Scripture, since Scripture is infallible.”

As a non-catholic, another area I felt Mr. Michuta did not adequately answer was in explaining his justification for asserting that the mere mention of a possible deutero-canonical work requires that the author believed that work to be on the level of the OT. Dr. White pointed out that with that line of reasoning, the Assumption of Moses and Book of Enoch (as well as pagan works) would have to be considered as Scripture. That was not answered by Mr. Michuta.

Well, that’s my three cents (inflation) worth.

 

[PhilVaz]

RedHot << As a non-catholic, another area I felt Mr. Michuta did not adequately answer was in explaining his justification for asserting that the mere mention of a possible deutero-canonical work requires that the author believed that work to be on the level of the OT. >>

Thanks for the comments, I’ll have to get this debate. If I ever debated White (probably not gonna happen unless I get a Ph.D. in theology, etc), I would practice debating beforehand, study every question he could possibly ask, etc. I assume the book Michuta is preparing is decent, but he should have studied and memorized the “answers” to all the supposed contradictions in the deutercanon. There shouldn’t have been a question from White he wasn’t prepared for.

What Catholics need is for William Lane Craig to become Roman Catholic, then he can re-debate White on all those topics that Catholics did poorly at in the past.

One of the best showings in my opinion for the Catholic side against White is the 2000 debate on papal infallibility with Robert Sungenis. I recently converted that for him to Real Player format from cassette tape, and it should be available on his site soon. I converted about 10 talks and 5 debates for him recently, and he’ll slowly make them available online.

I haven’t studied the OT canon issue in depth…maybe another area to study after I get the tapes of this debate. Matt1618 the amateur apologist did a big study of the Fathers and the OT here

The Church Fathers and the OT canon

Phil P

 

[BobCatholic]

Angelica:

That looks like fun!

whomps Bob on the head with a pillow
whomps Bob on the back with a pillow

Ack! I’m not Keitaro and you’re not Kaolla Su(1)

(1) Obscure “Love Hina” reference intentional

 

[BobCatholic]

_Christopher_:

Did Father Pacwa lay the smack down on James White in that debate?

Yeah. There’s even a site where someone put up a video file where James White admits something embarassing about Sola Scriptura.

 

[PhilVaz]

You mean this?

James White: “No.” Gerry Matatics: "Thank you."

Phil P

 

[beng]

PhilVaz:

You mean this?

James White: “No.” Gerry Matatics: "Thank you."

Phil P

LOL

Yeah. That is precious.

 

[ERS83]

I’m not knowledgeable on subjects like this so maybe someone can help me out. How does a Christian believe in Sola Scriptura yet not believe that the apostles practiced it? Does James White believe that Sola Scriptura wasn’t applicable until Luther and the reformation came to the scene? I hope I didn’t set up a strawman but if that’s what he believes I can only shake my head.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< How does a Christian believe in Sola Scriptura yet not believe that the apostles practiced it? >>

It’s the whole “sola scriptura is not operational when the apostles were alive” argument. While the apostles were alive, Christians could go and listen to them directly. But when they all died, that’s when sola scriptura supposedly became operational or functional. Don’t ask me how this works.

White used to argue 2 Timothy 3:15-17 taught sola scriptura (i.e. his book Answers to Catholic Claims, and his 1993 debate with Pat Madrid), now it seems that is irrelevant since sola scriptura wasn’t operational when Paul wrote that. Don’t want to misrepresent, so here is White himself (written in 1997 for his web site in response to Steve Ray’s article on the Bereans) :

“…the doctrine [of sola scriptura] speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? …You will never find anyone saying, ‘During times of enscripturation – that is, when new revelation was being given – sola scriptura was operational.’ Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is ‘sufficient.’ It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, ‘See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!’ Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?”

That’s why White responds bluntly “No” to the Matatics question whether the apostles practiced “sola scriptura.”

Phil P

 

[RedHotForJesus]

ERS83:

I’m not knowledgeable on subjects like this so maybe someone can help me out. How does a Christian believe in Sola Scriptura yet not believe that the apostles practiced it? Does James White believe that Sola Scriptura wasn’t applicable until Luther and the reformation came to the scene? I hope I didn’t set up a strawman but if that’s what he believes I can only shake my head.

From my limited understanding the concept is understood within the larger framework of “covenant theology”, which understands God’s redemptive plan to have been revealed progressively over a period of time. For example, in Genesis we see the seeds of the gospel promise given to Adam and Eve which is more fully revealed to Abraham and then given typological form in the law of Moses and annunciated as coming by the prophets. This progress culminated in the coming of our Lord and the foundational church building work of the apostles.

Your question would be like asking if the OT prophetical works were to be part of the rule of faith for the jews since they already had the Torah and there is no specific “clause” in the prophets explaning sola scriptura.

Sorry if that was not very clear. Tough to respond in any depth while at work

 

[Hesed]

Can you apply the same reasoning – did the apostles believe it – to the teaching magisterium or the authority of the Pope?

 

[Marys_daughter]

beng:

LOL

Yeah. That is precious.

I’ll second that!

 

[AmandaPS]

PhilVaz:

You mean this?

James White: “No.” Gerry Matatics: "Thank you."

Phil P

Which debate was this from? I’ve only listened to one debate ever (Fr. Mitch Pacwa on the Bible Answer Man) and find myself looking forward to listening to more.

 

[JasonTE]

PhilVaz:

It’s the whole “sola scriptura is not operational when the apostles were alive” argument. While the apostles were alive, Christians could go and listen to them directly. But when they all died, that’s when sola scriptura supposedly became operational or functional. Don’t ask me how this works.

You do know how it works, Phil, because you agree with James White on this subject. Like James White and sola scriptura, you don’t believe that the Roman Catholic rule of faith was always in effect. Adam and Eve didn’t have a Pope or magisterium. Neither did Noah. And the Roman Catholic rule of faith wasn’t in effect when Jesus was walking the earth or when the apostles were alive. Paul’s oral teachings, for example, were authoritative without meeting the modern standards of infallibility within the RCC. If you and other Catholics can understand how the Roman Catholic rule of faith can be in effect at some times of history, but not at other times, then why can’t you understand the identical principle with regard to sola scriptura?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org