White And Ally – Two Sides Of The Same Coin
James White is an inconsistent apologist. He is more than happy to point out how Islamic apologists like Shabir Ally use double standards to attack the Christian faith but when it comes to attacking Catholicism, he throws those standards out the window.
To all muslims, who read this blog, please pay attention because we all need to expose the dishonesty of this man. Christians and muslims both value honesty so we should make it our goal to show that James White embraces the same inconsistency of which he accuses muslims.
First of all, I don’t see why muslims would watch Catholic vs Protestant debates so I can understand why they wouldn’t have seen this but they’ll be surprised to know that White is a huge hypocrite on the issue of using liberal scholars in debate. In 2008 when James White and Shabir Ally debated on Muhammad in the Bible, Ally quoted many liberals including Raymond Brown. White spent almost the whole debate trying to point out that it is inconsistent to try to use liberal scholarship to try to make supernatural claims. I agree with this but the problem with White is that he has no problems when doing this with Catholicism.
In 2001 he debated Fr. Peter Stravinskas on the doctrine of Purgatory. In this debate he employed the tactics he condemns when used by Islamic apologists.
The debate can be found here:
At the 45:00 mark he says:
Hence as Roman Catholic McBrien admits: “There is for all practical purposes no Biblical basis for the doctrine of Purgatory. This is not to say that there is no basis at all for the doctrine but only that there is no clear Biblical basis for it.”
When I first heard this statement I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. James White has the audacity to quote this ultra-liberal scholar Richard McBrien to a Catholic opponent to make a point but when Shabir Ally quotes EP Sanders, Rudolf Bultmann, or Raymond Brown, it’s a big deal? That is complete hypocrisy for someone who claims to be a Christian.
However, the hypocrisy continues. Less than a minute later James White says another inconsistent statement. At 45:34 he says:
Fundamentally there are errors concerning sin. For example there is the distinction of sin into mortal and venial categories and already 1 John 5:16-17 has been made referenced to which speaks of a sin unto death and a sin not unto death. But even as Roman Catholic exegete Raymond Brown admits, this passage refers to a form of apostasy, not anything else. In fact he says: “We should avoid identifying sin unto death with mortal sin and a sin not unto death with venial sin.” That’s a Roman Catholic exegete making that statement.
White clearly does not care about consistency in the slightest. It is clear that he only cares about winning debates no matter what tactic he uses. It’s not okay for Shabir Ally to use Raymond Brown in debate but he won’t hesitate to use them against a Catholic opponent? This makes me sick.
This isn’t the only video where he does this. He did similar things in his Purgatory debate with Robert Sungenis in 2010 where he kept trying to force Sungenis to accept the extremely liberal Jerome Bible Commentary. However, the glaring examples provided here should suffice for now. To put it simply, White is no different than a vegetarian who eats steak then chastises other vegetarians when he catches them eating a steak and tells them that its inconsistent with vegetarianism.
I must admit that citing liberals is tempting. Recently I was debating a Jew on a certain verse in the book of Isaiah. I was tempted to cite a liberal Jewish commentary that agreed with the Christian position on this verse. Instead, I exegeted the context without using the liberal commentary and he later conceded that I was correct. After all, I’m not a liberal, so why would I use one? However, James White doesn’t think this way. He’ll use any tactic necessary then criticize others when they use it.
I challenge anyone reading this blog to point out where I have cited a liberal of a position I was criticizing to delegitimize their position. You won’t find it. I’m not James White.
I will gladly refute this fallacious and ridiculous attack on the Dividing Line today, 4/28, at 4pm EDT. http://www.aomin.org.
Looking forward to it Dr. White!
HAha.. The writer of this article is CLUELESS on matters of Christian faith. James White is the leading Christian apologist alive today and has done more for exposing all the errors of Islam and Roman Catholics than anyone.. I’m glad James White will be addressing this article shortly on his program..
Appeal to authority is a fallacy. That White is a so-called “leading Christian apologist” is abosultely irrelevant.
.As an ex Roman Catholic and now a saint saved by His grace. This doctrine is not only unbiblical, it is indeed the doctrine of demons.
It has been something which Rome has amassed a fortune and kept it’s people in slavery.
This Romanist sets forth his argument not from scripture, but from the Romanist Cathechism proving yet again, that Rome is built on man’s traditions and not God’s holy word.
Hello Michael,
Thanks for the reply. I disagree about the evidence for purgatory since I think its completely Biblical but that was not the point of the post. The point of the post was to show the double standards of Dr. White.
I did listen to the program and will be responding to what he said.
God Bless.
Dr. White was not inconsistent, and therefore not dishonest, since Rome claims to be infallible, with an infallible Pope, a “living voice” and able to solve disunity problems, and these Popes put liberals like Raymond Brown on the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The Roman Catholic Church does not discipline these liberals, while at the same time claim to have the answers to denominationalism in Protestantism.
So, it is different when we or Dr. White uses a Roman Catholic liberal, since there should be no liberals, because of the high claims that the RCC makes.
Hello Mr. Temple,
Rome is not infallible. Rome is just a city in central Italy. The Bishop of Rome is infallible when defining a doctrine which is extremely rare. It hasn’t been done since 1950. That is 66 year ago. The appointment of modernist Biblical scholars is not in the area of infallibility. Popes, Cardinals, and bishops are all human and make mistakes.
Would you or Dr. White argue that the Catholic Church believes that priests should break their vows of celibacy and have bastard children? I’m guessing no. You would say that the Church is against clerics breaking vows of celibacy and having bastard children. Regardless, in 1492 the Cardinals of the Catholic Church elected Rodrigo Borgia to be the Pope thus becoming Pope Alexander VI. He had eight children with several different women while he was a Cardinal, yet he was elected to the Papacy. Does this mean that the Church encourages bishops and Popes to have children? Or course not.
Does a Pope appointing a modernist to a Biblical commission mean that the Church endorses modernist Biblical scholarship? Of course not. The Church condemns modernist scholarship so to quote a Catholic modernist is inconsistent….unless you’re a protestant modernist which you and Dr. White are not.
Popes are human beings and make mistakes. Unless they’re defining a doctrine, they’re as fallible as you or me. The Jewish talk show host Dennis Prager understands this better than Protestant apologists like you or Dr. White which I find extremely sad. He once explained it to a Protestant on his show during the Bishop Williamson affair in 2009. The difference is that that was some random Protestant caller. You and Dr. White are elders and apologists.
Besides, in 1971 Pope Paul VI took away most of the authority of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and its more or less ceremonial now. Surprise, surprise, Raymond Brown was appointed to this commission in 1972. Could that be a coincidence? I think not. Pope Paul VI would never appoint Brown to anything serious like the pre-1971 commission. Richard McBrien who was the other example I used was never on any commission.
Regardless, even with all of the decadent renaissance Popes and the modernist Popes of the last 50 years, we’ve remained one Church. Christ has only one Church, not a legion of denominations with contradictory confessions making up some broad definition of a “Church”.
I would strongly recommend that you read the documents of Vatican I to learn what we believe about Papal Infallibility because you have misrepresented it on several occasions.
Hi Allan,
First, let me say again I really enjoyed your other article about Islam and “the majority of scholars say” this or that – which Paul Williams and others like Shabir Ally use that method all the time. That was very good!
There is a difference between Dr. White using RC liberals in debates with RCs; vs. Shabir Ally using liberals in debates of Islam vs. Christianity. The difference is in the reasons behind the liberals in the Shabir Ally example, and the reasons for the conclusions of the specific instances in the liberal Roman Catholic commentators. The reasons and worldview presuppositions of liberal attacks on Scripture, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. are based on anti-supernatural presuppositions. (which Muslims use against Christians, but it is inconsistent because of their own commitment to supernatural claims for the Qur’an and prophethood of Muhammad.)
But the reasons behind why those RC liberals can be used in quotes about Purgatory are not because of an anti-supernatural bias, but rather because they did not see those doctrines as present, even implicitly, in Scripture. One can still hold to a belief in miracles and supernatural inspiration of Scripture, yet criticize the exegesis of those dogmas and doctrines that the Roman Catholic Church admits are not in Scripture, but are based more on tradition and the development of doctrine through the centuries.
See the difference?
I do understand the formal definition of the Infallibility of the Pope as defined by Vatican I (1870). (ex cathedra; only when the Pope intends for it to be an infallible dogma of faith (doctrine) and morals for all the Roman Catholics worldwide, etc. Other statements or opinions or the Pope’s moral life are not part of the infallibility dogma. I get those distinctions.
Many say it has only been exercised once or twice in history. (1854 and 1950; but that automatically seems to say that there are 3 times – as 1870 was also an instance of that, by definition.) Some Roman Catholic apologists claim that infallible dogmas were only done 8 times in history, some say 16 times, some say 2 or 3 times, in history. With that divergence of opinion, how are we to really know which one is right; and what practical value the Infalliblity dogma has, since no one is absolutely certain how many infallible dogmas there are?
The problem is that the way the typical Roman Catholic seeks to win a Protestant is by claiming that the Pope and his authority and jurisdiction and charism of infallibility, and power to be a living voice that can walk into the room and say “thus says the Lord” (Tim Staples has said this many times; and my friend Rod Bennett, author of “Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words”, argues this way) – that ability and giftedness would be a positive thing to solve all the disagreements within Protestantism and bring unity to Christianity; so the argument goes. If a person is persuaded by that; he then expects it to be real, but then he finds out that it is not real; it has only been exercised 2 times, or 8 times, or 16 times in history. What good is that claim?
The extra-biblical references were thrown about by both. White was merely finding whether Stravinskas believed the sources White referenced. Stravinkas asked White whether he believed the sources Stravinkas referenced. White denied those who contradicted the Bible. Stravinkas did not, because he doesn’t believe the Bible as the sole source of truth of Christianity. Your analysis is faulty.