An anti-Catholic
– in scholarly usage – is not merely a person who differs with
Catholicism. Nor does it refer to someone who “hates” Catholics
or opposes all things Catholic simply because they are Catholic. And
it doesn't refer to emotions or opposition to individuals, but
rather, to Catholic theology.
The anti-Catholic is
one who thinks that Catholicism is not a Christian system of theology
and that to be a good Christian and get saved, one must be a bad
Catholic; that is, reject several tenets of Catholicism that differ
with Protestantism; or in the case of Orthodox anti-Catholics, with
Orthodoxy.
But first let me
introduce the man who is the subject of this book. James White (b.
1962) is a Reformed Baptist apologist, author, public speaker and
debater, and elder at his church. He does many other things in his
apologetics besides oppose Catholic theology, and many of these are
good and worthwhile endeavors; for example, his critiques of Islam
(his recent emphasis), the King James Only viewpoint, theological
liberalism, Mormonism, and atheism.
By and large, in
dealing with these topics, he does a good job, in my opinion, and I
have often publicly commended him for it. When it comes to
Catholicism, on the other hand, it's quite a different story. In that
domain he falls into the typical (and rather outrageous) errors of
anti-Catholic thought.
Mr. White is the
founder and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, which began in
1983. In 1990 he started concentrating on critiquing Catholicism, and
produced his first two books on the topic: The Fatal Flaw, and
Answers to Catholic Claims (both by Crowne Publications:
1990). His other books (out of 26) that are devoted wholly or largely
to Catholicism, include The Roman Catholic Controversy (1996),
Mary – Another Redeemer? (1998), The God Who Justifies
(2001), and Scripture Alone (2004): all published by Bethany
House.
White obtained an M.A.
Degree in theology from Fuller Theological seminary in 1989. During
the mid-90s as the Internet began to flourish, he began devoting a
lot of time and energy to that medium, and he started his weekly
webcast, The Dividing Line, in September 1998. It often deals
with Catholicism. He developed a website and blog, with voluminous
writings, as well.
He is probably most
known (and renowned) for his formal oral debates. According to his
website he has done 117 of these, starting in August 1990, including
38 devoted to various Catholic beliefs: or 32% of all his debates. He
engaged in more than one debate with apologists such as Fr. Mitch
Pacwa (five), Robert Fastiggi (four), Tim Staples (three), and
Patrick Madrid (two).
White also has
challenged me to oral debate on three occasions: 1995, 2001, and
2007. Thus, he averages a request every six years (even though –
oddly enough – he constantly asserts that I am a profound imbecile
and ignoramus in theological and exegetical matters), and is due to
ask me again before this year is out. Perhaps this book will be the
impetus.
My answer was the same
in every instance: I regard oral debates as vastly inferior to
written debate and I don't cultivate public speaking, in any event. I
note that White is also a writer, whereas I am a writer only, so that
the written medium is where we could and should best interact: the
common ground.
“Debating”
in the title of this volume is especially apt, as it highlights how
Mr. White views himself and how he – by all appearances –
especially wants to be known. I love debate and dialogue, myself, as
a longtime socratic and apologist. Christian apologists (defenders of
the faith: in either its Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox forms)
certainly debate; if they don't, they are surely not apologists worth
their salt.
The question at hand,
however, is how to define a debate, what one's intentions
are in undertaking one, and whether the truth is being
defended while debating.
Mr. White engages in
habitual “boilerplate” regarding his debates and those who (for
whatever reason) decline to participate in them with him. One very
common theme is his notion that writers “hide behind their
keyboards” – they are (he thinks) intellectual cowards and scared
to death to face him -- the Terrifying and Unanswerable Scourge of
Catholics – behind a podium in a public oral debate. Here are three
examples:
Dr. Stauffer: Brave
Behind the Keyboard, Unwilling to Defend His Assertions (article
title: 3-25-06 on his blog)
. . . Armstrong
continues to refuse to debate man to man in person, and wishes only
to hide behind his keyboard where he knows that no one, and I mean no
one, can possibly force him to answer a direct question. As long as
you can use the written forum, you can avoid the very essence of
debate, the heart of debate, which is answering direct questions that
test your position for consistency. Armstrong knows he is simply
constitutionally incapable of the task, but he refuses to admit it,
opting instead for this kind of rhetoric. (7-12-07 on his blog)
There are far too many
folks who hide behind a keyboard on web forums . . . (2-3-09 on his
blog)
Mr. White's typical treatment of yours truly
(since 1995) is clearly observed above. I will try as much as is
possible in this book to avoid documenting his constant juvenile and
sub-Christian resort to personal insult, so as not to afflict readers
with silly tedium (I wish to stick solely to theological issues). But
removing White's ubiquitous insults of his Catholic opponents in
written records is very often about as easy as removing the white
stripe from a candy cane: it's so intermingled as to be impossible to
extricate from the substance. I'll do my best!
The other frequent and annoying theme with regard
to Mr. White's debates and his “spin” about them, is the notion
that when an oral debate did occur and the other party didn't
make it available in his venue, this “proves” a tacit admission
of defeat. Here's an absolutely classic instance of that polemic,
from a website article (9-18-00) reprinted on 12-28-12 on his blog:
I have
seen my opponents use many tactics to cover over poor performances in
debates. You will find documented on this website at least one
imaginative approach taken by Catholic
Answers back in 1993 when Patrick Madrid
attempted to do damage control after our sola
scriptura debate in San Diego by writing
“The White Man’s Burden” in This Rock
magazine . . .
But
never before have we seen such complete and utter admission of defeat
than we are seeing from St. Joseph
Communications regarding the July debate
with Tim Staples on Papal Infallibility in Fullerton, California . .
.
.
. . we have learned that Saint Joseph’s
is still not selling the audio tapes of the debate, and that more
than two months after the encounter. We have been making the tapes
available since the week after the debate. We made it available as
soon as we possibly could. . . . you cannot, as of today (September
18th, 2000), order the debate from Saint
Joseph’s. Why not?
Of course, White has never ever linked to our own
first lengthy 1995 “postal debate.” He gave me permission to post
it on my website, but he has never linked to it. Thus, if we follow
his reasoning above, how is that not an admission that he lost
the debate (especially given the fact that he left my final 36-page
single-spaced response utterly unanswered)? Otherwise, why wouldn't
he encourage folks read our exchange, so they can see how marvelously
he allegedly did and how miserably I did?
White would respond that our exchange was not a
debate in the first place, because it wasn't moderated or live in
front of an audience. It would be tough to argue with a straight face
that a debate must always be oral and can never be in writing.
That would take out, for example, many of the famous debates in the
16th century between Catholics and Protestants, such as those between
Erasmus and Martin Luther, or John Calvin and Cardinal Sadoleto. It
would also entail the absurd position that the ancient philosopher
Plato wrote no dialogues or debates (often reconstructions of the
great Socrates engaging in dialogue).
For my part, I have had a consistent track record
in favor of written, point-by-point exchanges where two parties
seriously interact with each other and engage in several
rounds of back-and-forth response. I have participated in well over
700 of these on my blog and earlier website, since 1996 when I first
went online. I wrote at length about the relative merits of oral and
written debate in a website paper dated January 2001:
It is said that in a
public, oral debate, obfuscation, or “muddying the waters” is
minimized by the other person's ability to correct errors
immediately, and to “call” the opponent on this, that, or the
other fact or argument. But this assumes that immediate,
spur-of-the-moment corrections are more compelling than a correction
which resulted from hours of careful research with primary sources,
Scripture, etc.
It is said that live
oral debates are a better use of time; that things can be said
quicker than they can in writing. But I respond that truth takes time
to find and communicate. Propaganda, on the other hand (such as the
norm of today's political rhetoric) is very easy to quickly spout.
Evangelicalism lends itself far more easily to shallow rhetoric and
slogans; Catholicism does not. It is complex, nuanced, and requires
much thought and study. And thought takes time, no matter how you
slice the cake. Again, truth and the acquisition of knowledge and
wisdom requires time.
It is claimed that
there is more interest in oral public debates. I'm not so sure about
that, especially with the advent of the Internet, but perhaps this is
true. In any event, that has no bearing on my own objections. It is
not public debate per se I am opposed to, but the perversion of it by
unworthy tactics and methods, which is the usual result when one is
dealing with anti-Catholics. So I am actually supporting what I
consider to be true debate, not the pale imitations of it which pass
for “debates.”
It is asserted that
it's harder to get away with lies and half-truths in the public
arena. Quite the contrary, I would maintain; it is much easier to
disinform and misinform, because one can put up an appearance of
confidence and truth very easily, through rhetorical technique,
catch-phrases, cleverness, playing to the crowd, etc. These things
are by no means as "certain" as avid proponents of oral
debate make them out to be.
It is stated (by
anti-Catholics) that Catholics don't fare well in public oral
debates. Under my thesis, I could readily agree with that. It is true
that the Catholic faith is not conducive to an environment where
sophistical carnival-barker, used-car salesman types try to distort,
twist, and misrepresent it at every turn (and this need not be
deliberate at all: it matters not -- the end result is the
same).
In an earlier paper (11-27-00) I wrote:
The
Catholic position is not well-presented at such “debates” (i.e.,
public, oratorical ones) because it is complex, highly interrelated,
and (in its complexity, spiritual profundity, and inner logic) much
more a “thinking man's religion” than Protestantism is.
Presenting such an outlook can't very easily be done in a
time-limited debate where our opponent is playing the audience like a
carnival barker or a dishonest politician. It can
be done in a book or a lengthy article, or in a website which deals
with all
the interrelated topics (or at least links to them), so that the
inquirer can learn how they are thoroughly biblical, coherent, and
true to history (and development of doctrine is also another huge and
crucial, necessary factor not easily summarized or even understood by
many).
Again,
it has to do with the complexity and interrelatedness of the Catholic
position, and the difficulty in promulgating it in sound-bytes, as is
the case in so many brands of evangelicalism. Websites are uniquely
designed to teach the faith, if this complexity is granted (with the
technology of links). I think the only near-equivalent to this in
live debate would be a series of debates, one after the other, so
that the faith can be seen in its many dimensions and in its
marvelous cohesiveness: what I would call a “cumulative apologetic
argument.”
In
a debate about papal infallibility, for instance, it would be
necessary to also have debates on apostolic succession, episcopacy,
the nature of the Church, indefectibility, the nature of authority,
NT teaching on Tradition, development of doctrine, the self-defeating
nature of sola Scriptura,
etc. I don't think the average Protestant has any hope of
understanding papal infallibility (and “problems” like the
Honorius case) without some
knowledge of these other presuppositional issues.
In
short, then, I think that any number of
Catholic apologists could and would win such a debate on content
(because our argument is true, and many apologists could convincingly
present it), yet “lose” it in terms of impact on the audience,
and in terms of the difficulty of persuading even those fair-minded
or predisposed to be convinced of our side. We should take before and
after surveys of people who attend these “debates” to see whether
what I suspect is true or not (and make it a condition of the
debate).
If
we must debate these sophists and cynically clever men, at least we
need to make sure they have to also defend their
position and not just run ours down
with the standard, garden-variety anti-Catholic gibberish, bolstered
with “quasi-facts” and half-truths presented in a warped,
distorted fashion. Those who don't know any better will always be
taken in by those tactics (which is exactly why anti-Catholics
continue to use them, consciously or not).
Most
public debate formats will not allow a fair exchange to occur, due to
complexity of subject matter, and the stacked deck which requires us
to defend complex truths, while the anti-Catholic escapes his
responsibility of defending the generally unexamined absurdities and
self-contradictions of his own position. Many anti-Catholics are
never, ever willing to defend their own view beyond the usual
trivial, sloganistic, sarcastic jibes.
It
depends in large part on how one defines “debate” or being “good
at it.” If by that is meant that a person is able to be quick on
his feet and offer both objections and answers; sure, many
anti-Catholics are (especially the more educated ones). If, however,
one means by being a good debater, being honest with the facts and
honestly dealing with one's opponents best shots, most professional
anti-Catholics are atrocious.
These are my opinions
about the shortcomings of circus-like oral “debates” with
anti-Catholic apologists, and the main rationale for why I don't
engage in them. If someone thinks that written debate is not debate,
then this book is not for them, since it will mostly consist of
written debates and point-by-point critiques. But for those who agree
with me that written, back-and-forth, substantive exchanges are
worthy of the name “debate,” this book will be a (hopefully
helpful) close examination of the flawed theology of James White and
his critiques of Catholicism.
In fact,
despite his “oral debate only” rhetoric, Mr. White has written or
contributed to at least two books that consisted of debates with
others: Debating Calvinism vs. Dave Hunt
(Multnomah: 2004), and The Plurality of Elders
in Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity
(Broadman-Holman: 2004). He's surely debated me, too.
I'm happy, as always,
to present both sides and let the reader judge. This is the beauty of
dialogue or even non-dialogical exchanges where at least one person
defends a true position. The truth will always shine through if one
is open to following it wherever it may lead. White's efforts at
debunking Catholicism fail first and foremost because he is opposing
what is true. “You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's
ear.”
The material
will be presented chronologically, and Mr. White's words (excepting the first
very long debate) will be italicized. If his position is so superior, it'll withstand
all this close scrutiny, But if not . . .
* * * * *
.jpg)
.jpg)
.gif)
