I find it interesting that White did not include a link to the source of his second set of responses. I was the source of his first response. He replied to my first 5 answers and promised to reply to the next 5 later. So why didn't he complete his response? I am not sure but I suspect my counter-reply had something to do with it. He really believes most converts have not given the issue much thought. When it became obvious I had thought about it a lot he ran from the conversation. He is a heavy weight boxer who only likes to fight light weight opponents.
So what do we have now? Another convert with no link to his blog. So if he replies effectively most people on White's blog will never know it. Whatever.
Hi Randy,
I made a link to your blog on my sidebar. Sorry for failing to do that for so long. I probably assumed it was there, but alas, it wasn't. Thanks for your longtime participation on my blog!
For others:
Here are links to Randy's original article replying to White, and a follow-up:
http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.c...s-10-questions/
http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.c...-white-replies/
Feel free (anyone) to note relevant links in appropriate comboxes here in the future . . .
Randy,
This is a fair observation, (not covering the next 5 questions, and not linking to the other Catholic converts comments); but needs to be made without the judgment of motives as to why he didn't finish and why he didn't link.
Maybe he just forgot about finishing your critique or he just has not yet had time to work through all of it; (I mean, you said the same thing when I gave you lots of Early Church fathers references on that paper on Matthew 16 and the Papacy at www.bible.org --(at your blog) you said you didn't have time to go plowing through the fathers -- by the way, I can understand that, really; but that is usually a Protestant reason for not knowing the ECFs, usually RCs love to study them.
-- James White has been known, because of time, to continue a discussion on the Dividing line on some subject for a time, then get interrupted by some other burning issue; and then return to the issue he was on, say, last month or 3 weeks or 2 weeks earlier.
I think that the main issue is time; and not wanting something to be an endless thing on the blog-o-sphere. Better to not judge motives.
I don't want to judge his motives. As a Catholic, I think it a badge of honor to have James White run from a debate with me. He only runs from the good apologists. Far be it from me to claim such an honor before it is due!
Just like he's run from me for 12 years. Yes: take it as a high compliment. He does this with whomever he thinks he can't answer. I suppose it is his best course, given his bogus self-promoting persona of supreme intellectual confidence. Ken tries mightily to rationalize his fleeing from my critiques, too, but hasn't succeeded thus far to remotely approach a plausible alternate explanation. 
I have added two amazing citations from Eric Svendsen and two equally extraordinary ones from David T. King since the original posting: found under my analysis of White's Question #10, my third point, and thus on the front page, directly above.
We could have a lot of fun with this. Which evasive route will White take with my paper this time? The choices most likely to occur are one or more of the following five:
1) Total ignoring as if it didn't exist (the route he has most often taken in the past).
2) I'm a "stalker" (a popular option for White in the last six months; paranoia is a recurring theme in his "replies" to Catholics).
3) I'm having a "meltdown" / am essentially out of my gourd (his recent favorite and my own personal favorite of all his cowardly excuses).
4) I'm an ignoramus, imbecile and idiot, not worth anyone's time (a great favorite of many anti-Catholics, when dealing with me, including White, but recently eclipsed by the "meltdown" or "stalking" rationalizations. To everything a season, I reckon . . .
5) A short, mocking, derisive reply, declaration of "victory" and then fleeing for the hills after my counter-reply.
It's tough to choose. My best guess is probably a combination of #2 and #3, but White is capable of pulling any of these excuses / techniques out of his magic bag of sophistical tricks at any time. Anyone else wanna venture a guess, in fun?
I liked this quote in the article:
"he promptly flees for cover in the Arizona hills again (presumably on his fabled bicycle)"
I liked it for purely literary reasons, I enjoy the level and style of writing.
Anyway, I am glad this Top Ten issue was addressed, I believe in the end it will only backfire on him.
The real problem with the Top Ten challenge is that if someone has answered those questions and come to a conclusion that the CC is the right path then what? I highly doubt they will be acknowledged by White as a fair and honest person.
The saddest of the top ten however was item #1. Im surprised Dave didnt pick up on the glaring problem. The problem is take what White just said while keeping in mind that Reformed Protestants believe they CANNOT lose salvation and that they have an infallible ASSURANCE...Who is White talking to at that point? WHO? Someone who in fact did not have the supposed assurance their Reformed pastor told them about every Sunday before they became Catholic?....in otherwords its the circular logic error of "he must never have been saved in the first place". Such a claim undermines the very pillar of this infallible assurance Reformed claim to have and that Catholics lack.
Question. After St. Timothy read 2 Tim 3:16-17 did he go out and start practicing Bible Alone? smile
Look at this conversion story, I wonder what would James White say about this conversion if it happen today?
The conversion of the greatest early Church Father, St. Augustine of Hippo.
The Confressions, chapter 12 "The Voice as of a Child.
"Such words I spoke, and with most bitter contrition I wept within my heart. And lo, I heard from a nearby house, chanting and repeating over and over, "Take up and read. Take up and read." Instantly, with altered countenance, I began to think most intently whether children made use of any such chant in some king of game, but I could not recall hearing it anywhere. I checked the flow of my tears and got up, for interpreted this solely as a command given to me by God to open the book and read the first chapter I should come upon. For I had heard how Anthony had been admonished by a reading from the Gospel at which he chanced to be present, as if the words read were addressed to him: "Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me." and that by such portent he was immediately converted to you.
So I hurried back to the spot where Alypius was sitting, for I had put there a the volume of the aspostle when I got up and left him. I snatched it up, opened it, and read in silence the chapter on which my eyes first fell.(Rom 13:13) Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in strife and envying; but put you on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences." No futher wished I to read, nor was there need to do so. Instantly, in truth, at the end of this sentence, as if before a peaceful light streaming into my heart, all the dark shadows of doubt fled away.
I decided to get in on the action.
http://chadisnotenough.blogspot....less-
funny.html
I think mine is the weakest of the 4? I've read, but I have to say -- I think the Catholics have done a pretty good job responding.
>>I have cited historian Philip Schaff many dozens of times in my treatments of the Fathers, and that is because he is a fair and accurate historian. He is thoroughly Protestant in affiliation, and makes no bones about it (often running down various Catholic beliefs in an openly partisan fashion), yet he gives the facts of history, whether they are "Catholic" or (as he sees it) more in line with later Protestantism. Thus, he is a valuable ally in my apologetic efforts of presenting the Fathers as they actually were.>>
Reading Schaff was the catalyst to my becoming Catholic. His treatment of the ante-Nicene Church made me realize that the Catholic Church was the Church of history.
I found White's fourth question quite telling if the situation were reversed and his assumptions were true of Catholicism:
"4) Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again?"
The Calvinistic twist of this question would be (in my estimation):
"4) Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ ONE time in your life and it leads you to believe that you have a one-way ticket to heaven and NOTHING (i.e. sin) can derail the train? Yet you can be deluded to think that in theory no sin will be held against you no matter how grave and still die an enemy of God though you confessed that Jesus is Lord that one time?"
From Philip Schaff, Vol I History ofr Creeds - § 37. The Reformation. Protestantism and Romanism. Pg 209
>>
Protestantism is progressive and independent; Romanism, conservative and traditional. The one is centrifugal, the other centripetal. The one is exposed to the danger of radicalism and endless division; the other to the opposite danger of stagnation and mechanical and tyrannical uniformity.
>>
To be honest, between "endless division" and "stagnation and mechanical and tyrannical uniformity.", I'll take the second option anytime. Thanks.
The irony is that Protestantism is not merely "exposed to the danger" of radicalism and endless division, but is actually characterised, at turns, by radicalism and, repeatedly, by division, by schism; whereas Catholicism has never fallen victim to stagnation and mechanical and tyrannical uniformity, no, not even during the pontificate of St. Pius X or during the days of the mythical Inquisition. On the contrary, within Catholicism one always finds a broadness and a diversity in theology and spiritual charisms (as Chesterton said, the Church is bigger on the inside than She is on the outside), while within many Protestant sects one finds stagnation and mechanical and tyrannical uniformity.
McGrath on justification and regeneration Iustitia Dei, Vol. 1
p. 182 "Although Luther regarded justification as an essentially unitary process, he nevertheless introduced a decisive break with the western theological tradition as a whole by insisting that, through his justification, man is intrinsically sinful yet extrinsically righteous."
p. 184 "The significance of the Protestant distinction between justification and regeneration is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological tradition where none had existed before. Despite the astonishingly theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout. The Protestant understanding of the nature represents a theological novum, whereas its understanding of its mode does not."
p. 36 "Augustine demonstrates of iustitia, effected only through man's justification, demonstrates how the doctrine of justification encompasses the whole of Christian existence from the first moment of faith through the increase in righteousness before God and man, to the final perfection of that righteousness in the eschatological city. Justification is about being made just."
p. 185 "The medieval period was astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, where the reformers departed from it."
p. 186 "The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration. Although it must be emphasized that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the ordo sautis, THE ESSENTIAL POINT IS THAT A NOTIONAL DISTINCTION IS MADE WHERE NONE HAD BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. A FUNDAMENTAL DISCONTINUITY WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE WESTERN THEOLOGICAL TRADITION WHERE NONE HAD EVER EXISTED, OR EVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED BEFORE. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification - as opposed to its mode - must be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
p. 182 " Although Luther regarded justification as an essentially unitary process, he nevertheless introduced a decisive break with the western theological tradition as a whole by insisting that, through his justification, man is intrinsically sinful yet extrinsically righteous
10. A good question, but it is hardly necessary for every convert to read Goode, Whitaker, and Salmon before scheduling his confirmation. There is a point at which you know you must convert and using a need to get a better education as an excuse to delay it would be perilous to your soul.
Same goes for question 9.
Question 6 Indulgentiarum doctrina does not include a description of grace. It is about another topic entirely, which is probably why it isn't called "Gratiae doctrina."
Hey Anonymous,
I have heard reports of those quotes before, I dont own the book though. The interesting thing here is that McGrath is a protestant and yet he admits such things... 
The problem is, White keeps harping on about how this doctrine is wrong, that doctrine is wrong, etc, while never really providing answers to Catholic ideas about the broader issues. Until he does, his objections are invalid.
A Catholic only believes in the Assumption (for example) because he has different ideas to a Protestant about divine revelation, the Bible, the church, the transmission of divine revelation (tradition), development of doctrine. Protestant apologists consistently fail to address these questions adequately, instead pouncing on individual doctrines (indulgences, virginity of Mary, etc).
James White has been known, because of time, to continue a discussion on the Dividing line on some subject for a time, then get interrupted by some other burning issue; and then return to the issue he was on, say, last month or 3 weeks or 2 weeks earlier.
Ken,
Please mark your calander for the 1st and 3rd Monday of each month. Check to see if Dr. White ever gets back to Randy's answers. Ever.
Alister E. McGrath "in 1999, was awarded a personal chair in theology by Oxford University, with the title "Professor of Historical Theology". He was awarded an Oxford Doctorate of Divinity in 2001 for his research on historical and systematic theology.
Martin Tohill:
James White has already finished answering Randy, and Randy is also responding more at his own website.
So you guys jumped to conclusions too soon, and seemed to judge motives. There is too much ad hominem on this post, and not much substance.
Very well, then. Assuming you are right, Bishop White can also answer my recent posts and the 15-20 or so on my blog that he has completely ignored, right?
Ken,
Again Mea Culpa. Yes a lot of hot argueing
Ken,
By way of apology let me try to engage in an actual thoughful comment. I know that, how ever you disaggree with me you will not fall to the level of Dr. White how seems to breath insutls as easily as...oh, breathing (I'll never make it as a writer)
An honest question from Dr. White:
Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Romes doctrine of sin, ..... in light of Roman teaching?
An honest answer from Randy:
In fact, I have been so blessed by reading texts like these i...
Rebuttal from Dr. White with a really annoying ad hominem...this is how Dr. White manages to drag discussions into the mud.
That is very interesting, but it really doesn’t tell us anything, unless what is being said is, “I did not understand the Scripture before, and I still do not, but reading them by inserting anachronistic interpretations derived from Rome makes it all so clear.” [Please, Dr. White, you asked. He answered. What's so hard about that?]
Dr. White continues with meaningless, confusing non-question accusations:
And what if the meaning of these texts goes contrary to what Rome would later define?[..MEANINGLESS QUESTION DEFTLY HANDLED BY RANDY] Have any of these texts been infallibly defined? If not, does it not follow that your understanding of them even now is fallible? And even if they have, are you sure you understand the allegedly infallible interpretation
Dr White continues with various meanderings that Randy politely and concisely answers until we get to maybe the only meaty discussion here, the disagreement over Matt 16:18
Here, finally is some real discussion of a major disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. And, guess what, I'll give it to Dr. White that his reading of the text is not impossible.(I didn't say true or correct but, simply not impossible. I would further argue that the Catholic reading is also not impossible and is true)
One could reasonably wonder what "this rock" refers to. Could it be Peter's faith, Peter himself, or perhaps Jesus was suddenly pointing to an actual rock that he wanted a church founded on?
Am I to become a Greek scholar to settle this? A historian? A paleontologist?
How can I understand what I am reading without someone to explain it to me?
Here you will tell me to pray for the Holy Spirit. If I were to tell you the Holy Spirit lead me to the understanding that "this rock" means Peter and all that Catholicism means would you believe me? you might disagree but could not prove me any more wrong than if a Protestant brother told you he did or did not believe in baptismal regeneration.
Sigh, I've re-read this several times and it fails. But I will cointinue to endeavor.
It figures that just when I finally have some time to write AND come across something I'd like to address, the particular post starts to fall towards the bottom of the page. Below is my own cut at James White's 10 questions. While I'm not truly a convert, I was not well instructed in the Faith until I was an adult. So there are aspects to my faith life which are similar to a convert's. Additionally, I believe that any of us - convert or not - should be able to give an accounting for our faith. So why should White's questions exclude me?
Since White's questions are lengthy in and of themselves, and my response is even longer, I am not repeating the questions here. I think anyone who will read what I have to say is already familiar with the questions.
10) A fair question. Obviously, an informed decision must be made after examining both sides of the equation. And I commend White for excluding Chick and Hunt. However, the assertion has been made that White would accept no answer as being good enough to satisfy him. In light of his treatment of recent, well educated and well versed in protestant theology converts; I would hope that White would clarify what level of study he finds sufficient to answer this question.
As for myself, I have not read the specific authors to whom he refers. My study of both sides began in my youth and continues today. It includes (but is not limited to)
- Attending the year-long course (resulting in the laying of hands and being accepted as "adults") given to teens at the Orchard Lake Presbyterian Church
- Attending Protestant and non-denominationa Bible studies throughout college
- Reading works such as Concord and Institutes
- Reading various works of the Early Church Fathers
- Reading information published at White's site as well as several of his contempories (One would hope that White feels he provides accurate information)
I believe that this level of study leaves me somewhat more informed than the average Protestant sitting in the pews around the world. Of course, White's question implies a very significant corallary. One which he should address. If a convert from Protestantism to Catholocism must read from the list (he provided) in order to fully understand what they are leaving, then the average Protestant in the pews must read that very same list in order to fully understand what they have.
One should recall that Calvin taught one could have a false faith; and that with this false faith God would temporarily bestow gifts of the Spirit, then remove those same gifts and utterly destroy the person with the false faith. If the average person in White's congregation does not have the true understanding (which seems to come from understanding Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and "modern writers"), then perhaps they have placed their faith (falsely) in the teaching of White's charismatic personality and not in the Lord Jesus the Christ. This would be a
One should recall that Calvin taught one could have a false faith; and that with this false faith God would temporarily bestow gifts of the Spirit, then remove those same gifts and utterly destroy the person with the false faith. If the average person in White's congregation does not have the true understanding (which seems to come from understanding Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and "modern writers"), then perhaps they have placed their faith (falsely) in the teaching of White's charismatic personality and not in the Lord Jesus the Christ. This would be a very serious situation with equally grave consequences. I suggest that White give this same reading assignment to his congregation so that they may be fully informed as to what they have in their faith.
9) Another fair question. And I have read several histories that cover several periods of the world. In question 10, White gave us a list of what one should read. Here he lists the criteria, but provides no examples of a history which meets this criteria. So again, regardless of what I have read, I am open to the charge that it is "not good enough." Could White provide a history (or histories) which he feels fulfill his criteria?
First, this is three questions, so I suppose the "Top 10" is just a convenient title. Additionally, these are pretty open-ended questions which require a lengthy response in order to adequately answer. In the interest of brevity, I won't go into a lengthy response. Instead, I am providing one-liner's which may be viewed as a descriptive title to any full answer.
They are:
- Yes. (And please note that in his "Top 10" White links to a Webster article which states "unanimous consent" is more of a consensus than absolutely universal)
- Development of doctrine.
- There is no claim that popes (or any others in the Church) are perfect men, without sin.
7) Again more than one question -- this time, effectively two.
The first question is a misleading and improper question. It ask me if I apply the same standard to Rome as others apply to protestantism, specifically sola scriptura. The proper question is whether or not I apply the same standard in both directions. What someone else does is completely irrelevant, regardless of whether or not it frustrates White. If I fail and apply a double standard, then it is unintentional. The tacit admission in White's question is that sola scriptura is equally circular to his view of the Catholic position. I also accept his definition that sola scriptura allows for traditions, rules, disciplines, doctrines, etc, with the stipulation that each of this must be tested against and are corrected by Scripture.
However, the doctrine of sola scriptura suffers from a major logical flaw. How does one test and correct the doctrine of what constitutes Scripture with Scripture while using a consistently applied, Scripturally provided, test? The answer is that one does not.
However, the doctrine of sola scriptura suffers from a major logical flaw. How does one test and correct the doctrine of what constitutes Scripture with Scripture while using a consistently applied, Scripturally provided, test? The answer is that one does not. One goes outside of the Scripture to answer this. Even our friend Ken Temple goes to "history got it right" to make this determination. Of course, this "history" is the result of the consensus of men which aligns more closely with the Catholic concept of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to the proper conclusion, rather than all conclusions being (positively) ratified by Scripture.
The unanimity question is an apples/oranges situation. White constrasts the Protestant diversity of variously held official doctrines against the individual Catholics who may espouse diverse, but unofficial doctrinal beliefs. The dissident from the Catholic Church is no longer in full communion with the Church. How can you expect such a person to be a valid spokesman for official Church positions? However, the dissident from a Protestant denomination simply forms his own church with his own unique set of official doctrines and (in the vast majority of cases) still considered a Christian Protestant, effectively adding to the cacophony of doctrinal voices produced by sola scriptura.
The third question (which I don't count as a valid question - hence the "two" above) is at best a quibble. Some recent research has shown that 33,000+ is not so "sloppy" of a number and definitely not "dishonest." Does White sincerely advocate that there are not a multitude of Protestant positions by various denominations? Rather than call names and point to things which others (not the intended recipients of his "Top 10" list) do, he should stick to his concerns for his stated audience and things which are under their control.
6) Yes. What is White's point about the Syllabus? Pius IX (who issued it) referred to it as "raw meat which still needs to be cooked." The Syllabus is a bunch of one-liners which pull from various previous documents. To understand the one-liners in context, one must refer to the original texts in which they were found. Does White appreciate this? Does he realize that's why the Syllabus contains references to the original documents?
I have not read this specific document.
5) Yes. Yes.
4) Yet again, more than one question. By my count, the "Top 10" is now a "Top 17."
First question. This is so poorly written (my jr and sr high school English teachers would cringe at the run-on sentence) that I cannot be certain what White is asking. One possible interpretation is that the Church teaches even though we come to Christ repeatedly, we may still fall away and die in that fallen away state. This certainly is a teaching of the Church, and I pray that I may persevere in the faith until the end of my days. Surely White teaches his
First question. This is so poorly written (my jr and sr high school English teachers would cringe at the run-on sentence) that I cannot be certain what White is asking. One possible interpretation is that the Church teaches even though we come to Christ repeatedly, we may still fall away and die in that fallen away state. This certainly is a teaching of the Church, and I pray that I may persevere in the faith until the end of my days. Surely White teaches his own congregation to persevere rather than to fall into apostacy. So I don't see a difference of position with the first possible interpretation.
That means that White must mean the other way of interpretting this question. Yet even here, he is still somewhat vague. What does he mean bay "approach the sacrifice of Christ..." ? Does he mean participate in the Eucharistic meal? Ask forgiveness of my sins? Participate in the Church's sacrements? Or faithfully hold to the teaching of the Church; a teaching which includes the fact that my salvation comes from God, gratuitously given - meaning by no merit of my own, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? If the pondering is anything other than this last example, then White is asking me to consider something that is incomplete. It would be akin to asking him to consider only the sonship of Christ apart from the rest of the Trinity and apart from the sacrifice on Calvary to draw a conclusion on salvation. However, if he is asking me to ponder the fullness of Christianity in the form of Catholocism, I have. And in that fulness (as already stated) we have the belief that salvation comes only from God in His gratiousness through the Christ.
The second question provides an assertion which is not demonstrated. The demonstration given by the links embedded in the question can be explained, not as a departure, but as a better understanding of what was previously proclaimed. Does White deny the ability to come to a deeper understanding of things over time? Or does he hold that a Christian c100 AD would have the exact same understanding of the Trinity as we do today?
3) White seems to confuse titles given to people with names. But even so, Simon was given the moniker "Rock" and Jesus is also referred to as the "Rock." The "Holy Father" and "Vicar" issue has been adequately discussed and there is little more which I could add. However, I find the follow-up part of this question interesting.
First, we need to note that White provides a link to one of Webster's articles on the interpretation of Peter as the Rock. In this paper, Webster gives a fair treatment to the concept of "unanimous consent." This treatment seems much more fair than is implied by White's usage in question 8 above. After defining "unanimous consent," Webster goes to a quote from Tertullian (from On Modesty) which claims that while Peter (the person) is the "rock," this does not extend to subsequent individuals as successors of Peter in t
First, we need to note that White provides a link to one of Webster's articles on the interpretation of Peter as the Rock. In this paper, Webster gives a fair treatment to the concept of "unanimous consent." This treatment seems much more fair than is implied by White's usage in question 8 above. After defining "unanimous consent," Webster goes to a quote from Tertullian (from On Modesty) which claims that while Peter (the person) is the "rock," this does not extend to subsequent individuals as successors of Peter in the form of the papacy or anything resembling the papacy. And Tertullian's quote definitely makes this assertion.
However, there are several problems with this first quote. Tertullian was answering the charge that the Church had the authority to forgive sins. He specifically states that he does not dispute this claim. Since this is a part of White's defense, does White claim that his church has the authority to forgive sins; an assertion to which Tertullian agreed? Tertullian's disagreement was not over whether the Church had the authority to forgive sins, but over the specific individuals within the Church who were vested with this power. As Webster notes, Tertullian did not believe this power was vested in bishops of the church through a line of succession. Instead, Tertullian asserts that since the revelation of the Trinity, God always works in threes. Thus, whenever three believers are found together, we have the Church assembled with all the associated vested powers. Again, I ask, does White truly hold this as a part of his position? Can I assemble any three members of his congregation and find those three vested with the authority to forgive sins?
But the most problematic part of "On Modesty" is when it was written. Ccel.org notes that this piece was written after Tertullian had fallen into heresy. Webster fails to mention this little tidbit. So he's taking Tertullian far outside of historical context. And this is after he chastises others for taking writers out of context! So the concensus at the time was not Tertullian's position, but rather the position against which he was arguing! Namely that authority was vested in an established Church through a succession of bishops! I do not have the time to fully examine the remainder of Webster's claims. Some of the quotes he uses seem to support his position, others continue to lend themselves to the Catholic position. But his starting point is factually faulty.
However, I'd like to note something else which White's question brings to mind. When my daughter was at school, 2000 miles away, and found with a knife to her wrists; as a father, I was beside myself. Yet my parish priest humbled himself and served me. When I lived in Florida, I had several occassions to speak with the Pensacola-Tallahasee bishop (in public settings such as airports). This man is very approachable and humble. I've spoken to many people who have the same
However, I'd like to note something else which White's question brings to mind. When my daughter was at school, 2000 miles away, and found with a knife to her wrists; as a father, I was beside myself. Yet my parish priest humbled himself and served me. When I lived in Florida, I had several occassions to speak with the Pensacola-Tallahasee bishop (in public settings such as airports). This man is very approachable and humble. I've spoken to many people who have the same opinion after talking with him one-on-one. In the months before he died, news media reported that JPII spent much time in the hospital. While there, though critically ill, he humbled himself and served many children. These children were also hospitalized and critically ill. Yet the pontiff took time to comfort them. This is not the harsh "serve me" monarchy that White paints. Rather, these men demonstrate that at all levels, those who wish to be the greatest must (and do) become the servants of the least.
Finally, do I think that God envisioned leadership hundreds of miles away? I suggest that White re-read Titus. Here, Paul is exercising authority (from across the sea!) over Titus. Titus is given authority over the entire island of Crete (a geographical region) to appoint local leaders "in every town." Seems a lot like the Catholic structure and has no mention of a plurality of elders!
2) Do you notice how White asks this question? If I answer it as written, then i give an unintentional nod to his assertion that the Marian dogmas are "completely unbiblical, a-historical," and "gnostic" with absolutely "no foundation." If I refuse to answer it as written, then he can claim that I have no valid reason for my belief. I would suspect that is why he is accused of using "debater's tricks." However, at the moment I am not making that assertion. I am merely pointing out that this question does contain its own slight-of-hand. Have I pondered the Marian doctrines? Yes. Do I find evidence for them? Again, yes. Consider, "The queen stands at your (God's) right hand, arrayed in gold," and the woman in Revelation who is both crowned as a queen and gives bith to the Savior. This woman is taken to a "special place" which God has provided for her. Yes, I understand that these passages may have other interpretations. However, that does not mean that they cannot also lend support to the Marian doctrines.
1) In this final question, White asserts his own conclusions about the Catholic Church. While it is extremely difficult for me to combat - in his own mind - what he has already established in that same mind, I will note that his assertions do not accurately describe the Catholic Church. The Church does not deny you a "Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition." As far as "endless cycles" go, is White's position that if he sins tomorrow, he does not need to repen
1) In this final question, White asserts his own conclusions about the Catholic Church. While it is extremely difficult for me to combat - in his own mind - what he has already established in that same mind, I will note that his assertions do not accurately describe the Catholic Church. The Church does not deny you a "Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition." As far as "endless cycles" go, is White's position that if he sins tomorrow, he does not need to repent of that individual sin? As for myself? I can truly say, "I have put on Christ. In HIM I have been baptised. Alleluia!"
In conclusion, I would like to note that White's questions contain several unsupported and unproved assertions. It is possible for him to ask a convert (or any Catholic for that matter) to give an honest accounting of their belief. And he can ask for this accounting without using these assertions to color - in advance - that same accounting which he demands. White does not do this. Instead, he creates a situation where anyone's explanation is insufficient and categorically incorrect - before that explanation is ever provided!
How does he do this? First, as Randy noted, with endless "homework assignments. White gives us three plus an un-numbered set of "modern authors" to read and analyze. He doesn't specify which volumes of their work (all of them?). He gives the homework assignment of having to read an unspecified number of histories. He lists the "Syllabus" as yet another assignment. If properly studied, the "Syllabus" must be read in conjunction with 80 other documents. In effect, there will always be one more thing that White will suggest someone read. Thus, even before the accounting is given, the person answering these questions will always be found wanting in White's opinion.
I have noted how he askes improper questions. He holds the person answering his questions accountable for the actions of other "Roman apologists" who may be well outside the influence of the person with whom White is interacting. With this attitude, he effectively holds all Catholics as guilty by association - regardless of the level of said association.
Finally, he is frequently vague. This may be unintentional. After all, these 17 or so "Top 10" are supposed to be a short list. But vagueness allows White to respond that he is not truly answered. You will see that each of the people answering White's questions take a different approach. This is because he is vague, does not define his own specific terms, and uses them one way while his supporting documentation (such as Webster's articles) use them differently. It is up to White to provide meaningful clarification if he wishes further dialog.
Thank you Jaime. that was the post I struggled, and failed, to write. it ppinted to De. Whites dishonesty in a frank and unemotional fashion. it pointed out that the questions are so open ended as to be unanswerable. The insults and presupppstions make an intelligent response very difficult.
I saw a dialouge between DA and an atheist. the athist told DA he didn't know enough until he had read philosophers A, B, and C on the subject. DA rightly complained this was too much and he didn't plan to read every word of every author under the sun to refute each poster.
I would call on Dr. White to rewrite his list as 10 direct questions of the Catholic faith sans ad hominems,...
You get paid by the word, right?
I wish! If that were true, anti-Catholic Steve Hays would be the richest man in the world.
Commenting by HaloScan
