Dr. White responded to my post about him last week. I’ve linked to the Dividing Line above and the relevant portion starts at 13:00 and goes for over an hour. I can’t respond to everything since I don’t want to be writing on this topic for a month but I’ll respond to some things.
First of all, there are a lot of red herrings. He talked a lot about old Popes compared to modern ones, he talked about Marian doctrine, he talked about Protestants swimming around the middle of the Tiber River and all sorts of stuff that had nothing to do with the post or the topic.
Dr. White first started with a litany of quotes from Catholic theologians about the priesthood. He quoted some good ones like Fr. Michael Muller but also quoted Shabir Ally’s favourite theologian Raymond Brown and others. I admitted that the Priesthood developed. I didn’t write a post on the case for a priesthood and its legitimate development because that was not the purpose of the post. I simply wanted to show that Dr. White believes in other developed doctrine such as high Christology specifically in regards to the hypostatic union and the two wills of Christ.
At the 52:30 minute mark, Dr. White said:
“I have defended the two wills of Christ and the hypostatic union from Scripture with Muslims around the world.”
I have never seen this. I have seen Dr. White defend the Trinity and the Deity of Christ but never these two doctrines. If Dr. White or anyone can point me to this debate I’d like to see it.
At the 57:00 minute mark, Dr. White said:
“I will link to your article. Don’t you dare remove it.”
I’m happy to stand behind what I wrote. This post will stay up as long as this website exists.
At 1:02:40 James White reiterated a debate challenge that he made a few times during this webcast. He said that I said he believed in the Trinity because of the Popes. Let me be clear, the Trinity is nowhere in this article. This article refers to high Christology such as the hypostatic union and the two wills of Christ. The Trinity is 100% scriptural whereas these two doctrines aren’t yet Dr. White still accepts them. I specifically mentioned Leo, Chalcedon, Agatho and Constantinople. I never mentioned Sylvester and Nicaea because I never brought up the Trinity.
At 1:06:50 Dr. White says with regard to the development of the priesthood.
“How early do you think it was?”
Well, they started calling them Priests in the 200’s according to one of the sources that Dr. White mentioned earlier on. I’m happy to go with that. Regardless, later he tries to say it’s a medieval view. The 200’s aren’t medieval. It’s ancient.
At 1:08:40
“Why was there no anti-Priesthood movement? Something tells me that if I mention the people that rejected the Priesthood your response is going to be: They weren’t Christians anyways, they were heretics.”
I didn’t say they had to be Christians, I just asked for a movement. I don’t consider anti-Trinitarians to be Christians but that movement still existed and is well documented. He then brought up people tried under the Inquisition but didn’t give names or dates or sources to go to. Regardless, where was that in the Early Church?
Dr. White said that the book of Hebrews was not read much. The book of Hebrews was part of the canon in Athanasius’ 39th festal letter and was included in the canon in the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage. By the late fourth century, the letter to the Hebrews was widespread in both East and West. If this is true and several of the early Church fathers believed in Sola Scriptura we would have expected to see numerous tracts against the Priesthood and the abolishment of the priesthood by the year 500 AD at the latest. It didn’t happen.
I should also point out something that I thought about last night. The Priesthood was more widespread than both the hypostatic union and the two wills of Christ. These two doctrines are rejected by the Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian and Assyrian Churches, yet they all believe in the Priesthood.
I want to bury one canard Dr. White has brought up for over 20 years. He says that the early church could not have believed in the Catholic view of the Eucharist because they didn’t have the Aristotelian categories. I should point out to Dr. White that even anti-Catholic polemicist William Webster disagrees with this.
William Webster says:
“In light of the facts given above we can see that such a claim is erroneous. The truth of the matter is that the views of the early Church on the meaning of the eucharist and its relationship to the person of Christ are very similar to those one finds today and in the days of the Reformation when one compares the different Protestant and Roman Catholic views.
There is the literal view of transubstantiation which could be that expressed by Chrysostom; the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, which could be that taught by Irenaeus or Justin Martyr; the spiritual view of Calvin, which is closely aligned with Augustine; and the strictly symbolic view of Zwingli, which is similar to that expressed by Eusebius.”
http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
While I would disagree with his analysis of what Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Augustine believed, Dr. White still finds himself at odds with an apologist he admires. He’s at odds with the fact that you can have the transubstantiation view without the specific Aristotelian categories. It’s identical to saying that Ignatius of Antioch was a Trinitarian even though he didn’t use the words Trinity or homousios.
I’ll have to leave my response at that. Now, the question that everyone wants an answer to: Will I be debating Dr. White?
I called Alpha And Omega Ministries after the show and talked to Dr. White himself. There is a good chance that a debate might happen. I won’t give out any more details at this time though.
And yes Dr. White, I’ve read your 24 pages on James.
A moderated debate between Dr. James White and Allan Ruhl will be highly appreciated. So accept the challenge.
Hi Allan,
You wrote:
Dr. White said that the book of Hebrews was not read much. The book of Hebrews was part of the canon in Athanasius’ 39th festal letter and was included in the canon in the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.
Not exactly what he said. at the 25:00 mark, He was quoting from Richard Hanson in his book, “The Christian Priesthood Examined” –
I am summarizing, please go there to get exact wording:
” . . . the Christian priesthood was absent in the earliest teaching (NT and earliest church history), emerged in the 3rd Century (200s AD), . . . It is significant that after Tertullian (writing around 190-220 AD) mentions the book of Hebrews once or twice and believes Barnabas wrote it, . . . it is totally unused in the western church until the middle of the 4th Century . . .” (350 AD)
The point was a very good one; that when the book of Hebrews was neglected, the priesthood started to develop in church history.
I find that odd since in the P46 manuscript which contains most of St. Pauls letters, Hebrews is there fully intact. This manuscript is dated from 175 to 225 AD. This person most likely thought that St. Paul wrote it because it was in with the Pauline Corpus. In one of Dr. Whites old lectures on the Bible(late 80’s or early 90’s) he actually makes this argument because I believe at one point Dr. White used to defend the Pauline authorship of this book. I think he was correct in making this argument. If thats the case, then this is damaging to the argument from Hanson that it wasn’t widespread.
But lets say it only gained traction around 350 AD. If several people in the fourth Century believed in Sola Scriptura such as Athanasius, Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nyssa,-these are the four examples that Dr. White always uses. They all read Hebrews and they never wrote against the priesthood. There should have been a flurry of tracts against the priesthood by these people. If Hebrews is anti-Priesthood then why didn’t the Sola Scripturists attack the priesthood then. Dr. White can’t have it both ways. It’s one or the other. If Hebrews is anti-Priesthood and Sola Scriptura was believed back then, the priesthood would have been attacked and abolished by the year 500 AD at the absolute latest.
Also, in the book Why Priests? by liberal Catholic Gary Wills he blames the development of the priesthood on Hebrews. The exact opposite of what Dr. White argues. Hebrews doesn’t contradict the idea of the Catholic priesthood since no Catholic priest claims to be a High Priest. That is only Christ.
The existence of Hebrews is one thing – manuscript P46 and the dates shows good evidence for it’s early existence.
What he was talking about was about the lack of comments and the lack of attention to it; it’s neglect.
It’s like the doctrine of justification by faith alone – it is there in the Scriptures, and one can find some in history articulating something close to it, but it was neglected and got eclipsed by the other man-made traditions that the Roman Catholic Church emphasized, especially after 5th century when emphasis on Mary and Purgatory and things like that became emphasis and dominant. See below
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/08/historical-developments-that-led-to.html
Look, we can debate all day whether Sola Fide is in the scriptures. I’ve read the best apologetics for it including Dr. Whites book as I showed the in my post. If you want to say that, you’ll have to deny that these people taught Sola Scriptura as White said. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t know if you claim what White does in regards to the early Church(or at least some) believed in Sola Scriptura. If you don’t, that’s fine but if you do, it makes no sense since you believe that Marian doctrine and purgatory are not in the scripture and you also think that Sola Fide is, yet one emerged in the early Church and the other one did not.
Regarding Hebrews, I think the fact that it was circulated with the Pauline epistles is highly significant because they implies St. Paul wrote it. It would have carried weight then.
Look, we can debate all day whether Sola Fide is in the scriptures. I’ve read the best apologetics for it including Dr. Whites book as I showed the in my post. If you want to say that, you’ll have to deny that these people taught Sola Scriptura as White said. You can’t have it both ways.
Why not? people are fallible and make mistakes and inconsistent. Some great quotes on Sola Fide are there in the early church, but they also made other mistakes on the Eucharist and baptismal regeneration and the priesthood.
People hold 2 mutually exclusive views at the same time, all the time, sometimes, many times, not even realizing it.
No, the verses are clear that there is only 2 church offices. Many of those passages say the elders are to do the work of overseeing and pastoring.
1 Clement 42 -44 also uses episcopoi (episcopous – v. 42 = overseers/bishops) and presbuteroi interchangably.
Titus 1:5-7 is very clear.
appoint elders in every city . . . for the overseer must be . . .
πρεσβυτέρους . . .
δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον . . .
“gar” γαρ = for – connects verse 7 to verses 6 & 5
You are correct that one can be inconsistent but why was the whole Church being inconsistent? That’s what I want to know. Not one tract against the priesthood. Yes, Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration and sola fide which is entirely inconsistent but not too much later other protestants said he was wrong. No one challenged the priesthood until the mid-second millennium, let alone the three tiered ecclesiology.
Regarding Clement, you cannot connect the two. You can read it in if you wish and I think its a stretch. Bishop is used 3 times in 42 and presbyter is used once in 44 in a different context. Let’s face it, its ambiguous at best.
Titus 1 can be read the same way. There is no concrete verse in scripture or the early church that says that its a two tiered episcopacy. There are ambiguous verses that can go either way but you can’t make a concrete case with those.
Regarding Hebrews, I think the fact that it was circulated with the Pauline epistles is highly significant because they implies St. Paul wrote it. It would have carried weight then.
That is not the issue; again, existence is not the same thing as neglect. It was there, but it seems to have been neglected between 200-350 AD; ie, from Tertullian to 350 AD, according to Hanson.
Perhaps it was, I’m not going to die on this hill but it simply throws out more questions for your camp. When Hebrews started to gain traction in the 4th century, why wasn’t it rejected as heretical since it was anti-Priesthood? It wasn’t rejected because Hebrews is not anti-Priesthood. If someone claimed to be a High Priest, then that is heresy. No Catholic has ever claimed to be a High Priest, not even the Pope. That is how the 4th Century Church understood Hebrews and that is how the Catholic Church does today.
It is interesting that you mention Garry Wills:
Garry Wills wants us to know that he really bears no animus toward priests. Truly. Some of his best friends, not to mention his mentors, are priests. His quarrel is not with priests but with the specious notion of the priesthood, which, he argues, FINDS NO PRECEDENT IN THE EARLY CHURCH AND PRECIOUS LITTLE WARRANT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT…
So, to quote the book’s title, “why priests?” The standard Roman Catholic teaching is that all priestly authority derives from Peter, to whom Jesus bestowed “the keys of the kingdom”; the authority of every priest, according to Catholic doctrine, can be traced through a line of “apostolic succession” back to Peter, the first bishop of Rome. The teachings of Jesus, however, were radically egalitarian: “The last shall be first, and the first last.” Neither Jesus nor his followers claimed to be priests, Wills maintains, and “THERE IS NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR PETER BEING BISHOP ANYWHERE — LEAST OF ALL AT ROME, WHERE THE OFFICE OF BISHOP DID NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.”
Having attributed the abiding conundrum of the priesthood to “the Melchizedek myth” propagated in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Wills writes that this new priestly class began over the centuries to arrogate to itself powers and prerogatives unimagined by Jesus and his disciples. Although Jesus had instructed his followers not to “address any man on earth as father,” priests demanded that very honorific… http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/books/review/why-priests-by-garry-wills.html?_r=0
From what is stated here, its not so much that Wills thinks that Hebrews presents a sacerdotal priesthood distinct from the priesthood of all believers, but that Hebrews was (mis)used to justify such an office.
You now have gotten me curious enough to read Wills’ book on this subject to see the evidence he presents to refute your assertion that the office of priesthood was something early and as having biblical precedents.
Much appreciated!
I just ordered a hardcover copy of Wills’ book for 49 cents on amazon and just started reading the intro on kindle. Here is what Wills writes:
“Some think that the dwindling number of priests can be remedied by the addition of women priests, or married priests, or openly gay priests. In fact, the real solution is: no priests. it should not be difficult to imagine a Christianity without priests. Read carefully through the entire New Testament AND YOU WILL NOT FIND AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN PRIEST MENTIONED IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES (only Jewish priests in service to the Temple). Only one book of the New Testament, the Letter to Hebrews, MENTIONS AN INDIVIDUAL PRIEST, AND HE IS UNIQUE-JESUS. HE HAS NO FOLLOWERS IN THAT OFFICE, ACCORDING TO THE LETTER.”
As I suspected, Wills wasn’t suggesting that Hebrews supports the office of priesthood. Rather, his point was that people misread Hebrews to justify the inclusion of a distinctly priestly office.
Now I know you are going to try to simply brush Wills aside by claiming he is a liberal and that it is therefore inconsistent of anyone who is conservative to cite him. The problem with that assertion is that, though a liberal, he still may have facts and arguments to support his claims which therefore need to be examined and/or refuted. For instance, his claims regarding the NT are spot on since there is no distinct office of priest found anywhere in the inspired pages of the Christian Scriptures. Neither do we find evidence for such an office in Ignatius’ letters, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas and so forth.
Therefore, the burden is on you to now provide the evidence that you think confirms and justifies your church’s decision to institute a distinct priestly office from the priesthood of all believers articulated in the NT (cf. Romans 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:5, 9-10; Revelation 1:5-6; 5:9-10; 20:4-6; 22:3).
I never said that Wills supported the my position. I’m just contrasting how this liberal heretic arrives at the same conclusion using the complete opposite argument that White and Temple do. White and Temple says Hebrews wasn’t used and Wills said it was incorrectly used. That was all that I was trying to prove with referencing him.
I plan on writing a Biblical and historical defence of the Priesthood eventually since you and many other James White fanboys seem interested in this topic.
I have to ask, will you admit that from the 200-250 AD to Luther, the Church was in apostasy since it Universally(except for those invisible Christians you mentioned before) accepted a Priesthood? I suppose the only answer is yes but I want to hear you say it.
James White fanboy? Is this your true wicked and repulsive nature being exposed for all to see? So when you get cornered and have your own arguments and sources turned against you resort to vileness and ad hominems? And this is your way of winning people to the truth of your church?
Now to answer your silly question, which again indicates that you are getting desperate since you seem to realize that you are fighting a losing battle. (You see, two can play the silly game of throwing insults at each other.)
To begin with, you need to stop begging the question since you are assuming that from 200-250 AD ALL THE CHURCHES HELD TO THE EXACT SAME UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRIESTHOOD THAT YOUR CHURCH DOES TODAY. You need to first prove that, and not simply assume it.
Second, how convenient of you to start at the year 200-250 AD, and ignore all those that came before this period. So should I take this as an admission on your part that YOU CANNOT PROVE YOUR CASE FROM THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND THE APOLOGISTS OF THE SECOND CENTURY? In fact, your own words show that I should do so and in fact will do so:
(except for those invisible Christians you mentioned before)
What a damning admission! So the invisible Christians which I mentioned, namely, Polycarp, Ignatius, Didache, Epistle of Barnabas etc., don’t matter to you, and therefore choose to insultingly brush them aside by pejoratively labeling them as invisible? Yep, I can’t wait to see you debate James White!
With that said, does this mean that these Christians that wrote from the latter part of the first century up until your proposed and arbitrary date of 200-250 AD who did not hold to your church’s view of the priesthood were all heretics? If so, you will and the other fanboys of the pope admit that the church became apostate after the death of the last Apostle and remained apostate up until 200-250 AD when it somehow got magically restored?
Fourth, I do not believe that the TRUE CHURCH of Christ ever apostatized since Christ has faithfully preserved it. With that said, just because I may not be able to point out who these true Christians were doesn’t mean they didn’t exist, nor does it mean that they have to be the men whose writings survived and whom you may point to (and selectively quote whenever they seem to support your position, but then insultingly toss them to the curb when they refute your claims, much like Shabir ally does with his own sources whenever they refute him), since I take it by faith that there always has been a true remnant of believers preserved by the grace of the Triune God, whose names may be known only to him. And that is sufficient for me.
Finally, I do not hold to a view that says that Christians that held to a priestly office distinct from that shared by all believers are heretics and apostates, since a person can be seriously mistaken and still be saved and a true believer. After all, if perfect theology were a prerequisite then all of us will be in hell.
Hope this clarifies my position.
“To begin with, you need to stop begging the question since you are assuming that from 200-250 AD ALL THE CHURCHES HELD TO THE EXACT SAME UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRIESTHOOD THAT YOUR CHURCH DOES TODAY. You need to first prove that, and not simply assume it.”
If you read the initial post, I admit that the theology of the priesthood developed beyond the fourth century. You need to go back and read it. Christology developed a lot beyond that as well. All theology evolves.
“Second, how convenient of you to start at the year 200-250 AD, and ignore all those that came before this period. So should I take this as an admission on your part that YOU CANNOT PROVE YOUR CASE FROM THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND THE APOLOGISTS OF THE SECOND CENTURY? In fact, your own words show that I should do so and in fact will do so:”
I don’t ignore those writings. When these men wrote about presbyters, they were not called priests but presbyters yet they performed priestly functions. That is why it changed and that is why no one complained when it changed. It was a change of vocabulary, not theology. No problem for my position.
“(except for those invisible Christians you mentioned before)
What a damning admission! So the invisible Christians which I mentioned, namely, Polycarp, Ignatius, Didache, Epistle of Barnabas etc., don’t matter to you, and therefore choose to insultingly brush them aside by pejoratively labeling them as invisible? Yep, I can’t wait to see you debate James White!”
You obviously didn’t understand my point.
“With that said, does this mean that these Christians that wrote from the latter part of the first century up until your proposed and arbitrary date of 200-250 AD who did not hold to your church’s view of the priesthood were all heretics? If so, you will and the other fanboys of the pope admit that the church became apostate after the death of the last Apostle and remained apostate up until 200-250 AD when it somehow got magically restored?”
No they weren’t heretics for not calling presbyters priests anymore than they are heretics for not talking about the hypostatic union or the two wills of Christ. The presbyters had a priestly function and that is why it was no skin off the early churches back to make the vocabulary transition to calling them priests. Again, no theological change took place and that is why no one protested.
Not interested in responding to the rest as it is mostly opinion.
A good debate of Dr. White’s against a Muslim, Abdullah Kunde, where the issue of the hypostatic union comes up is:
“Can God Become Man?”
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/debate-can-god-become-a-man-james-white-vs-abdullah-kunde/
I am pretty sure that the 2 wills came up in either this one or one or more of the other ones where Dr. White defended the Deity of Christ and the Trinity with Muslims. He has many debates on those issues, too numerous to count.
I think it was talked about in this debate also:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/is-jesus-god-almighty-james-white-vs-shadeed-lewis/
Okay, thanks. I will look into these. I listened to the Kunde one some years back but I don’t remember it very well. I’ll have to go through it again. I’ll check the Lewis one out as well.
There are also other of Dr. White’s against Muslims on the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity where the hypostatic union comes up and the 2 wills of Christ, but I cannot remember which ones, there are so many. But the time spend on those exact issues is smaller within the larger issues of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
If you find anything else, feel free to send it my way. I enjoy watching Dr. Whites debates and learn a lot every time.
They all read Hebrews and they never wrote against the priesthood. There should have been a flurry of tracts against the priesthood by these people. If Hebrews is anti-Priesthood then why didn’t the Sola Scripturists attack the priesthood then.
Probably, the reason is because it became too entrenched by that time and was assumed. Like the development of the mono-espiscopate from Ignatius onward. Before then, in the NT and earlier writings, there were only two offices of each local church, elders/pastors/ bishops/overseers were the same person – one office (Titus 1:5-7; I Peter 5:1-4; Acts 20:17, 28; Acts 14:23; Philippians 1:1, and early writings like 1 Clement 42-44; Didache, Shepherd of Hermas), and deacons.
You mentioned the mono-episcopate from Ignatius onward. If you read Ignatius carefully he’s not inventing anything new. He’s dealing with the structure that he inherited and commands the Catholics to be loyal to it. There is no evidence that he changed it from a two-tier to three-tier and imposed it on everyone. He wouldn’t even have the authority to do that.
I would also argue that Ignatius gives the only fully detailed description of the ecclesial structure. The Biblical passages you quoted as well as Clement, Didache and Hermas are ambiguous at best. They can actually be interpreted in a mono-episcopate way since they aren’t as clear as we would like. Just like we interpret ambiguous verses in the scripture with clear ones, we do the same thing with the data we have in the early Church around the time of the early 2nd Century when Clement, Ignatius and the Didache were being written.
If scripture taught clearly the two-tier episcopate and was against a priesthood, no one in the first 1,400 years of the church clearly stated that it did. I think that’s problematic. For someone like me who interprets scripture with tradition, this is not a problem at all.