White Mans Burden 2.2

This response was started literally YEARS ago (well over a decade), I lost track of it and found it in my "drafts" for this blog so I have reviewed it again, and though sadly the links that James Swan asked me to review no longer exist. That said there is enough here and some primary source links where we can see where White truly did lose the debate and the "bait and switch" or "shell game" he attempts is exposed and clearly shows how and why he lost and loses this debate - hands down.

Back in 2010, I told James Swan I'd be looking deeper into the White/Madrid debate, and to be honest - I lost track of that and am getting back to that now.  In the earlier post, Swan left links for me to look at, but those are no longer valid so I have found these in which to continue:

Transcript of the debate:  http://vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html (this link no longer exists)
Audio of debate (on YouTube):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IJYWqFjKb0 (this link is also no longer valid).
I found the vlog from Sept. 2, 2008 here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx-FsKV-GEU  (this link still works as of the date of this posting).

November 1, 1995, James wrote: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/roman-catholicism/catholic-answers-myth-or-reality-a-refutation-of-patrick-madrids-article-the-white-mans-burden-and-a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

The actual debate can be heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7_Cge-p6o

White's 2012 - well, 1995 - summary response:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2012/11/15/catholic-answers-myth-or-reality-a-refutation-of-patrick-madrids-article-the-white-mans-burden-and-a-defense-of-sola-scriptura-vintage/ This link now takes you to White's 1995 article (cited above).

I started this article using the 2008 response, I will leave what I've entered previously, but keep in mind, that was in response to the video blog (vlog).  

September 2, 2008 - White defends himself first by attacking the response of Patrick Madrid to the 1993 debate between Patrick Madrid and James White on "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?".  White points out that Madrid uses the terminology of "anti-Catholic" twice in three sentences.  Well, I'm not sure what White's objection is here, he IS an anti-Catholic!  He opposes Catholicism!  I would not say White is anti-Catholic-persons, as he and I have long been on friendly, though sometimes on tenuous, terms.  I think he appreciates the person of Patrick Madrid but still, White is anti-Catholic!  If you're counting, I used the term 3 times in 6 sentences.

Next, White pretends he has the insight into some secret meeting at Catholic Answers headquarters where allegedly it was decided that they (the Catholic apologists) in a debate would wait until there was no time left in the debate for their non-Catholic challengers to respond and then slip in the matter of the Canon (of Sacred Scripture).  Then, with no real time to respond, keep hammering home the fact that the non-Catholic apologist cannot and/or has not responded.  He claims this is exactly what Madrid did in the debate, he waited until the second rebuttal period to introduce this topic - and since White went first, he had no chance to respond. Whether or not this "secret meeting" ever took place is immaterial. That said, White 

In actuality, it is White who brings up the Canon of Sacred Scripture first, and he does so in his Opening Statement!  White, who brought up Cardinal Newman builds a strawman and then knocks it down stating, 

"Paul is not speaking about the extent of the canon but the nature of Scripture itself as originating in God."  

I'm surprised that Madrid did not pounce upon this sooner!  Yes, Madrid does not come back to this topic until just before the Cross-Examination Round, but I don't know how much more White could have said.  In White's 2012 response (to this same debate) he said "That is what I was inviting Mr. Madrid to do: show us another “infallible rule of faith.” He came up with exactly one example in response: the canon of the NT. We will discuss later why this effort failed."  There were no time constraints upon him in this 2012 response, and yet even though he stated he would "get back to this later," the only mentioning of the canon after that point was this:  "It would be profitable to examine Madrid’s statements on the canon of Scripture, and note how he had to move away from the Old Testament and use only the New (since the historical reality of the formation of the OT canon refutes his position). But such will have to be left for another time."  So, even when he has all the time in the world to respond - White has not "lifted the burden."

White then proceeds to tout that in the last 15 years (he recorded this vlog in 2008) that he has learned so much about sola scriptura, he's written books on the subject, defended the subject in debates, etc.  In short, he's setting himself up as the final word on sola scriptura - or at least A final word.

White brings out the allegation that Patrick Madrid claims he will resist from bringing out the 52 pages of Early Church Fathers so that he does not bury White in the quotes.  White scoffs and anachronistically mentions that he has the third volume of the King/Webster series on sola scriptura with over 300 pages of quotes allegedly supporting sola scriptura.   Even if the King/Webster volume was as authoritative as White insinuates it is, and he doesn't cite from it, is he not guilty of the same "bluster" he accuses Catholic Answers of?

After all the "bluster" he claims that Madrid touts that we know who wrote the book of Matthew, and the only way we know this is through our tradition.  Then White brings up unnamed modern Catholic theologians who claim "we don't know who wrote Matthew."  Without facts here to look up, I will not speculate upon who these Catholic scholars are - but I have a pretty good idea to whom White refers.  Modernist revisionism aside, we do know who wrote Matthew - and it was St. Matthew the Apostle.

The next part of this vlog is White's 20 minute opening statement from 1993.  He begins by accusing that there are always some who refuse to give Scripture its proper position.  He quotes St. Basil stating that in matters of dispute we should allow Scripture to decide between us and on which ever side we find doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the favor of truth.  Then White asks the question, "Is the Bible the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church, or must we have other revelations from God?  Do we need the Book of Mormon the writings of the Watchtower... or the so-called unwritten apostolic traditions of Rome?"  Now that is NOT what the subject of this debate was!  THE subject of the debate was "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"  Next White cleverly manipulates the title of the debate, stating, "Does the Bible teach its own sufficiency to act as the sole rule of faith for the Church?"  Let us note, loud and clear, this is NOT a debate about "sufficiency" but rather "sola."  The bait and switch is in place.

Following the bait and switch above, White begins his actual debate by defining what sola scriptura is NOT.

"First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge.  The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail... but the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to act as the sole rule of faith for the Church."
"Secondly it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth."
"Thirdly, it is not a denial that at times God's Word is spoken. Apostolic teaching was authoritative in and of itself.  Yet the Apostles (anecdotally) prove their teaching through God's Word."
"And finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church." 

After this he goes on to define:

"What then is sola scriptura?"  The doctrine of sola scriptura simply stated is that the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith of the Church.  All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source.  That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

Note again, the change in topic!  White continues to try to make sufficiency the matter of the debate, and not "sola."  He continues bringing up concepts of sufficiency and has abandoned sola, and then states, "The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating."  Well, so he claims, but he doesn't state where Scripture itself, or shall we say Scripture alone, teaches these doctrines.  So, since these are "not found in Scripture" - then they are "not binding upon the Christian conscience."  White defeats himself in his opening argument! If the subject of this debate were "satis scriptura"- well, let us not fall for the bait and switch!

White interrupts the opening statement here to interject more on what he means by "self-authenticating" - and again it is noted, this is NOT the subject of the debate!  White clarifies that the matter of self-authenticating is not about "canon" (as in the Canon of Sacred Scripture, noting again, it is White who brought up the Canon of Sacred Scripture).  He's essentially conceding that one cannot find the Canon of Sacred Scripture by means of sola scriptura.  He projects that later Madrid will be accusing him of claiming that just "feeling" a book is scriptural and just "feel" that it is inspired.  The fact of the matter is, nowhere within the Canon of Sacred Scripture is the Canon of Sacred Scripture defined! In fact, books were added and subtracted from the Canon for the first four hundred years of the Catholic Church and the Canon would be finalized by St. Jerome - and Jerome's Canon was dogmatically declared at the ecumenical Council of Trent in the sixteenth century!

 

Why did the Catholic Church wait over 1500 years to dogmatically define the canon? Well, as stated already, the canon was "set" in the fourth century via St. Jerome's translation of Sacred Scripture from the original tongues into the Latin Vulgate. It would not be until the sixteenth century with the dawning of Protestantism that St. Jerome's canon was contested - specifically the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals, which he did not "add" to the canon - they were already there in the Septuagint, or Greek canon, which many, if not most, Christian scholars agree - is what Jesus, as well as the Apostles and Evangelical writers of the books of Sacred Scripture, referred to and cited from - but I digress...

Back to the debate...

White continues...

Now, given this, I would like to explain how I plan on winning my debate this evening with Mr. Madrid.  Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.  Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church.  Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.  Hence, logically, I must do the following things:

• First, I must demonstrate that the Bible teaches that it is A rule of faith for the Church.
• Secondly, I must demonstrate that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church, that is, I must demonstrate its sufficiency, or in the language used in the New Testament itself, that the Bible is artios.
• And, thirdly, I must demonstrate that the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith does not refer us to any other rule of faith.

Well, again, the topic of the debate is NOT to show the Bible is sufficient, period.  All discussion of sufficiency is nothing more than a red herring argument intended to draw the audience off the scent of the REAL subject - which, again, is "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"  Whether or not Scripture refers to "another rule of faith" is irrelevant!  If the Bible does not teach "sola" then the teaching falls under its own weight.  

The above being said the Bible DOES teach that there is another infallible authority!  Sadly, White knows this, all too well, but stands in denial of the plain words of Scripture.  1) In Matthew 16:18 and 2) 18:18 we find Jesus Himself, as recorded IN SCRIPTURE stating that 1) a man and 2) a group of men can bind or loose whatsoever they choose - there is NO LIMITATION here!  Further, what they bind or loose on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven!  Now, unless White believes God would allow for error to be bound or loosed in Heaven - then these MEN have been given infallible authority - AND that authority is explicitly taught IN Scripture!  White has already lost this debate!  I realize that White will deny the passages in Matthew mean what I said here - but his denial cannot change reality.  Facts are these men were given authority to bind or loose on Earth and what they bound on Earth was bound in Heaven and this authority was not limited in scope for "whatsoever" they should bind, or loose, was bound or loosed in Heaven.  Since I believe that both White and I would agree that no error could be bound in Heaven, then this authority is infallible authority.

That being said, White continues in stating many who oppose sola scriptura use "cheap debating tricks" of trying to get the proponents of sola scriptura to prove a universal negative.  That is, to prove the non-existence of another rule of faith.  Well no, and if some non-sola scriptura debaters use such a "trick," well, they are just missing the obvious - and that is the challenge of THIS debate!  The Catholic position of Madrid is simple - NOWHERE does the Bible teach SOLA scriptura!  That which White is REALLY representing is not sola scriptura, but satis scriptura - or the sufficiency of Scripture.  If THAT were the real topic of this debate, then Madrid (myself and others who have engaged White on the topic of sola scriptura) would have an entirely different approach and argument.  We would have to discuss the difference of materially sufficient v. formally sufficient to begin with; the former can have a valid (Catholic) understanding while the latter would be a false teaching.  However, I digress, THIS debate is about whether or not Scripture teaches sola scriptura and on THAT point, White clearly loses the debate when he does the "cheap debating trick" of the "bait and switch."  By changing the subject he has essentially conceded the entire debate.

Next, White goes with his infamous pen analogy - which is, in reality, just another attempt to shift the burden of proof from himself to his opponent.  He prefaces (and I paraphrase a bit here),

IF this debate were about me having to prove there is no other authority that would be like me holding up my pen, yes, my pen, and declaring there is no other pen like this in the universe.  How would I go about proving it?  To prove there is no other pen like this in the universe I would have to go through all your purses, all your shirt pockets, all the stores in the world which carry pens, go through all the houses on the earth, go to the moon, all the planets in the solar system and the entire universe, looking for another pen like this.  Well, of course, I could not do that.  But you see it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win this debate.  All he would have to do is go out and get a Cross Medalist pen, walk up here, hold it next to mine and say, "See, another pen just like yours."  And he has won the debate.  In light of this, I would assert that Mr. Madrid must either recognize this reality and not attempt to win this debate by doing nothing more than relying upon an illogical demand, or he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen."

Actually, White has merely set the terms of this debate in black and white terms (another common fallacy in debate) and has insisted upon either the absurd or that Madrid present something which is not the topic of the debate!  Remember, the topic of the debate is "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?"  In short, White is attempting to set an impossible premise for Madrid to fulfill.  That being said, as we have already seen, that "other pen" DOES exist IN SCRIPTURE, (Matthew 16:18 and 18:18), so White - even in his own fallacious terms - has clearly lost the debate.

I will stop here for now. The links which James Swan challenged me to review are no longer valid, if he has another source for those links - I would be more than happy to pick up where I am leaving off here.

 

In JMJ, 

Scott<<<

Just one more reason to subscribe to Envoy Magazine!

Swan on Madrid and the Rosary

In doing some research for another article I'm working on, I came across the following from James Swan on the aomin.org blog.  Note, Swan's objection is to Madrid's mentioning of the Rosary - yet if you listen to the clip, it's mostly about confession and getting out of mortal sin.  The Rosary is a tool or weapon against falling into mortal sin - but we ALL make mistakes - we ALL fall and we ALL need to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession or Penance). 

Swan writes:  This MP3 clip is from a broadcast of Catholic Answers live (December 2008). Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid answered a caller concerned about her mortal sin. After explaining how the Catholic Church instructs such a person to go through confession, absolution, and penance, Madrid says to pray the Rosary because it is the "strongest weapon outside the sacraments that we have to combat mortal sin." The Rosary is not just a repetitious prayer in the Catholic veneration of Mary, but thestrongest weapon to keep one from mortal sin.

Again, whereas the Rosary is mentioned, the main thrust of Madrid's response is to answer this person in regard to mortal sin and that it was important still to go to Mass, but not receive the Eucharist until one has made it to Confession first.  That being said, the Rosary is, perhaps, one of the strongest if not the strongest weapons to use to keep one from committing mortal sin.  Why is it such a strong weapon?  Because the Rosary in not "vain repetition" as our Protestant friends would think (as I used to think too!), no it is sets of meditations primarily upon the life and passion of Jesus Christ!  In the standard Rosary of 15 decades (each "decade" being 10 "Hail Mary" prayers), each decade is spent in meditation upon an event - 13 of which primarily deal with the life and passion of Jesus Christ!  If we add in the Luminous Mysteries, added by Pope John Paul II, that's 5 more decades devoted to the life of Jesus Christ!  So, of the 20 decades - TWO of them have meditations primarily upon Mary (the Assumption and the Coronation).  

So, how about all those "Hail Mary" prayers?  Aren't we praying TO Mary?  Why not pray directly to Jesus?  There's NOTHING to stop the Catholic from praying directly to Jesus!  However, the "Hail Mary" is moreso a prayer or petition asking Mary to pray for and with us TO JESUS!  How often, when we are in need, do we ask our fellow Christians to pray for us and/or with us?  That being said, much of the "Hail Mary" comes to us directly from Scripture!  Allow me to illuminate: 

"Hail Mary, Full of Grace!"  The Lord is with thee! (Luke 1:28)

"Blessed art thou, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Jesus)!" (Luke 1:42)

"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.  Amen."  (This second part, as you can see, is not so much a prayer TO Mary, but rather a petition asking Mary to pray for us now, and as we're dying). 

So you can see, there's not a whole lot to get excited about here!  The first half of the "Hail Mary" comes directly from the greeting of the Angel (Gabriel) to Mary and the greeting her cousin Elizabeth made upon Mary's visit.  It seems an appropriate manner to greet her when petitioning her to pray for us. The second part recognizes that Jesus is God and Mary is His mother, and asks her to pray for us both now and at the hour of our death.  Keep in mind too, while praying this - we're actually meditating primarily on the life of Christ!

Swan continues:  In his book, Where Is That In The Bible?, Madrid mentions the repetitious Rosary helps Catholics "meditate on key episodes of the Gospel narrative, as well as mysteries of the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary" (p. 136). This prayer asks "Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, to intercede on our behalf and use her prayers as a weapon of grace against the evil one, the Red Dragon spoken of in Revelation 12... when we pray the Rosary, we go well-armed into battle against the adversary, who is 'prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour'" (p.137).

   True, all Christians are engaged in a real battle against the world, the flesh, and the Devil. Yet God has not left us to fend against the ravages of sin on our own. But before we consider Madrid's "strongest weapon," why not look into the Scriptures?

There is nothing to stop one from looking to the Scriptures!

Swan continues:  Over the years I've heard many sermons on "putting on the full armor of God" as expounded by Paul in Ephesians 6. Paul exhorts us to "put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand." He mentions the "belt of truth," "the breastplate of righteousness," "the shield of faith," and "the helmet of salvation." He says to pray in the Spirit on all occasions. In Ephesians Paul doesn't tell Christians to meditate on the "mysteries of the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary."

Well, this would be a rather anachronistic argument, now wouldn't it Mr. Swan?   The Most Holy Rosary was not given to us for quite a number of centuries, even though the counting on beads, or knots in a rope, actually predate Christendom. 

Swan continues: Rather, he asks the Ephesians to pray for him as he proclaims the mystery of the gospel (Eph. 6:19). In fact, the entire epistle to the Ephesians is soaked in devotion to Christ. Christians are instructed to be "imitators of God," while Mary, Madrid's strongest weapon, is conspicuously absent.

And again, there is nothing to stop the Christian from petitioning fellow Christians and other Saints - the benefit of the Holy Rosary is a) in the meditations, putting your heart and mind focused on Christ and b) petitioning Jesus' mom to pray for us to Him as well.

Swan states:  Paul doesn't mention the Rosary as a means of fighting sin and standing strong in the faith. 

And again with the anachronism!  One has to wonder why a Protestant apologist would think such an "out of time" argument would be valid.  Perhaps to someone weak in their faith or one who thinks St. Paul carried with him the King James Version of the Bible, maybe someone like that might be fooled by such argumentation but no one who knows even a little bit of history of the Holy Rosary would be fooled by this.

Swan posits:  One would think if the Rosary is the "strongest weapon outside the sacraments that we have to combat mortal sin" he would've mentioned it. Perhaps Paul mentioned it elsewhere to the Ephesians, but didn't write it down? Perhaps this is an unwritten Tradition?

And more and more of the anachronistic argument!  Perhaps Mr. Swan should consider that the Holy Rosary was first given to St. Dominic by the Blessed Virgin in the late 12th to early 13th century.  Yes, that's some 1200 years AFTER St. Paul was martyred in Rome - so it's not very likely that St. Paul would be talking about something which would not exist for another 1200 years!

Swan asks:  Perhaps it's been defined as such by an infallible authority?

Actually, no - there is no infallible teaching on the Rosary.  It was a private revelation to St. Dominic - and though intended to be shared, it is still a matter of private revelation.  No Catholic HAS to participate in Rosary prayers.

Swan continues:  Perhaps Madrid is engaging in private judgment as to his positive disposition towards the Rosary?

No again.  Patrick Madrid is expounding upon private revelation which has been approved/authenticated by the Church.  I reiterate, it has not been elevated to a "de fide" or dogmatic teaching - so no Catholic HAS to participate in the Holy Rosary.  If I may share, when I first converted from being a Lutheran, I asked my confessor about this.  Since I was a Lutheran previously, I had some reservations about praying the Rosary, the good Monsignor Waterhouse (may he rest in peace) simply said, "then don't do it!"  He went on to say, "I can't understand why you wouldn't - but if you're uncomfortable with the Rosary, don't say it."  That removed a lot of concern from me, and then when I studied the Rosary itself from a more objective point of view, I came to understand it better and those earlier reservations have gone by the wayside.

Swan concludes:  The answers to these questions probably won't be forthcoming any time soon.

Well, "soon" is relative.  Mr. Swan posted this over a year ago, so my answers did not come "soon" after he posted this blog, but they came within the same day of me reading the blog - I trust that is "soon enough" for him.  I cannot say if Patrick has or has not directly responded to Mr. Swan.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

For more information on the Most Holy Rosary and its history, please look at these links:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/ROSARYHS.HTM
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea4sb1.asp
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13184b.htm

Catholic Men for Christ

Patrick Madrid will be speaking at this conference for Catholic men, sponsored by the Archdiocese of St. Louis, this weekend, Saturday, February 6th. Please join him if you can, and please share this info on your FaceBook pages, blogs, and other new media outlets! Patrick is hoping to see you and a bunch of your guy friends there. It's going to be good.

http://www.catholicmenforchrist.org/site/

White Mans Burden

I spent the second part of my lunch hour today reading through Patrick Madrid's accounting of his 1993 debate with James White on the subject of sola scriptura.  I own an audio copy of this debate myself, and after listening to it and reading Patrick's accounting in this article, I have to agree with Patrick's summation.  Ironically, this debate is still available for purchase on White's website - and the description of it is:

James White vs former Catholic Answers Vice President Patrick Madrid. This is the debate that prompted one of the most outrageous articles in the history of This Rock magazine.

Well, the article White is referring to is the one I just read!  Far from "outrageous" - it was right on the mark.  The transcript of this debate is also available for free from White's site (click here).  I believe some of the "different ideas" White used on Madrid, and Madrid commented on the novelty of them, were ideas White developed in debates he was having with me prior to the San Diego debate with Patrick.  The "pen" story and the "bike shop" story are both analogies I had heard from White before (and refuted too, so it was a bit of surprise that he'd actually use them in debate!).

Anyway, not much more for now - but this reading got some ideas a-churnin' - I'll share more later as these ideas come closer to reality.  In the mean time, if you haven't read Patrick's article, I recommend it!

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

NASCAR Apologetics?

Welcome to the Dirt Track!

Patrick Madrid shared an interesting article today, and I thought I'd link through to that as well.

http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2010/01/nascar-of-catholic-apologetics.html

Now I'm not necessarily looking for someone to "crash and burn" - but "if it ain't bumpin' - it ain't racin'!" Check out the article - and if you feel like leaving a comment here, please do!

Scott<<<

What Is Wrong with White

Roman Unity: If it Promotes Mother Rome, It's All Good

So goes the headline from James White's blog from January 6th, whereas that's a bit hyperbolic and not entirely true - let's take a look at White's blog:

01/06/2010 - James White
My first moderated, public debate was on the subject of Roman Catholicism. It took place in August of 1990. Since I have a few decades of experience now,

sw: If anyone is counting, White states he began in "August of 1990" and since it is just January of 2010, that's not even two complete decades and "a few" would indicate more than two, generally at least three or more. So White begins his statements with an exaggeration of the truth [or perhaps it just seems to him to be more than a couple decades, nonetheless, he would be better served to have stated "nearly two decades of experience"].

I find myself shaking my head in disbelief at one particular fact over and over again: Rome's apologists just don't seem driven to work hard in their field.

sw: I used to shake my head in disbelief at how White constantly attacks the persons he confronts before he even tries to deal with what they have said - but I don't anymore, it's so commonplace in reading his "debates" and bloggings that it can hardly be disbelieved anymore.

Further, they clearly observe the "throw everything including the kitchen sink in defense of Rome, no matter how objectively bad it is on a scholarly level."

sw: (Yawn) more personal attacking - though this attack is on Catholic apologists as a whole, the attack is against each of them (us) personally as if we all observe the methodology he imputes upon us all.

Illustration: today Patrick Madrid took a shot at "Calvinists" in general on his blog. For someone who has yet, to my knowledge, to engage a Calvinist on the relevant subjects (of course I would, Patrick, let's set it up!) in debate,

sw: White seems to think that "debates" are the best way to engage someone on a given subject. Whereas I can see some advantage to debating - often what happens is both sides walk away considering they have "won" the debate and little is actually accomplished. A more "engaging" discussion would be an "online/written debate." I would be more than willing to engage White in such - and have several times in the past - but White apparently doesn't like the fact that in such a written debate he's put on a more equal ground with his opponent. Little tricks that can sway or influence someone in a live debate don't work in a written debate. The fact that he's been caught in error MANY times in written debate is likely another reason he avoids such and prefers to go the testosterone way, mano y mano, because - as I will freely admit, he's quite talented in manipulating a live debate.

sw: Illustration - in 2001 White challenged me to a "live debate/discussion" on his "Dividing Line" webcast and I accepted. Previous to his challenge I had been discussing John 6 and the Eucharist and he challenged me to this discussion, I assumed, based upon those John 6 and the Eucharist discussions that when White proposed the topic of John 6 that indeed we'd discuss the same and I accepted. I prepared for a debate/discussion on the Eucharist and John 6 - he opened with a 5 minute opening statement which didn't even touch upon the Eucharistic meanings in John 6! Instead - he turned it into a Calvinstic discussion on predestination, etc. That was my first "live" debate, and I admit that I wasn't skilled enough at the time to refocus the discussion back to what actually prompted the challenge - and that's a tactic that he'd have a hard time pulling on me now. Anyway, the point is - he has talent in debating someone live, I do not deny that. My point is that being persuasive in a live debate does not necessarily equate to an accurate promotion of the truth. As for the 2001 encounter, in the "live" session I do not feel there was a true "winner" at all. White threw a curve ball at me, discussing something I was not prepared to discuss - but even though I don't believe I "won" that exchange, I did hold my own in answering him (and his callers, who went off on even more tangents). What IS clear from that exchange is in the non-live/written exchange, White abandoned the debate leaving many challenges unanswered (see link below).

I find his surface-level retorts somewhat amusing. But what is amazing are the three links he provides for, what he calls, "quite able" refutations of Calvinism. Two are ancient articles Jimmy Akin wrote years and years ago, neither of which provide much in the way of substance.

sw: The objective reader here can see that White is not attacking ANY of the substance from Jimmy Akin's articles - and he admits there is SOME substance to those articles just not much in his not-so-humble opinion. White's only accusation against Akin's articles is the AGE of the articles! Truth, I'm sure the objective reader will affirm, is timeless so with the lack of ANY substance to White's presentation - it should be summarily dismissed.

And the third is to Dave Armstrong's series on Calvin! Now, with all due respect to ol' Dave Armstrong, he is one of the clearest examples of why past canon law prohibited laymen from engaging in public disputation in defense of Rome. Serious readers in the field realize that while Dave may stumble over a thoughtful argument once in a while, it is always to be found somewhere else. He simply does not produce original argumentation of any kind, and clearly does not understand the responses that have been offered to him over and over again.

sw: Again we see that White merely attacks the person of Dave Armstrong. "Ol' Dave Armstrong," he says "is one of the clearest examples of why past canon law prohibited laymen from engaging in public disputation in defense of Rome." What White doesn't do is a) present us with the former canon law (as if that would apply today anyway) or b) any "examples" from Armstrongs literally dozens of references. No, it seems it was much easier for White to engage in character assassination (again) instead of any substantial argument against either Armstrong or Madrid. I fully expect, if he chooses to respond to me at all (which he pretty much avoids any direct responses to me anymore after I've been able to demonstrate and document his errors on too many occassions) that he will attempt the same with me, character assassination and no substantial arguments. I would be quite engaged if he were to prove me wrong on this point and actually deal with some substance.

So, we find Madrid once again pulling out of mothballs surface-level materials that are nearly two decades old, and promoting Dave Armstrong as "quite able" refutations of Reformed theology.

sw: Actually, what we find is White once again participating in nothing more than the apologetics of personal destruction. He has not engaged a single amount of substance from either Madrid, Armstrong or Akin but merely engaged in personal attacks.

One is truly left wondering if these men really think this kind of material has real weight and meaning, or if they are just too bored to do serious work in the field. I will leave it to the reader to decide. 
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3716

sw: I am glad White leaves it to the reader to decide, for the objective reader will have to question who is really getting bored here and merely resorting to personal attacks and not engaging ANY substance AT ALL in this character assassination piece. And now, so I am not accused of the same thing I accuse White of, let's look at what White is critiquing and see if there's some substance there or not, shall we?

Here's Patrick Madrid's Blog:

Things are getting a little fidgety over in Calvinland, at least within the Sovereign Calvinist embassy to Free Republic. The Great Reformed Ping List is underway again, complete with some obligatory tub-thumping and chest-beating about their enemies' "anthropomorphic rantings" and how their solas are being "mightily assailed," etc., etc.

sw: Well, not a lot of substance there, but he does refer to "The Great Reformed Ping List" which is being "revitalised" on FreeRepublic. In fact that's pretty much the whole of Madrid's blog is just a comment that this GRPL is being reactivated - and he takes a bit of interest or "fun" in watching them banter about...

It's kind of fun to watch (bad Latin grammar and all), but still, it's sad to see good people become so hopelessly entangled in the errors of the Calvinist religious system (some of which are quite ably refuted here, here, and here).

sw: Now I grant you, Madrid does not get into examples of the "errors of the Calvinist religious system" here - but he does refer us to Armstrong and Akin. If White were doing a thorough refutation then he would have at least directly engaged those articles (Armstrong's is more of a list of articles) with at least some clear examples of where Armstrong and Akin have falsely represented Calvinism. White doesn't do that though, he merely attacks the persons of Madrid, Armstrong and Akin. So yes, let the reader decide - the objective reader can surely see who appears to be "bored" and who actually thinks it's "kind of fun to watch" such discourses. Madrid closes with a quote from the Free Republic forum:

Exurge, Calvinisti, et judica causam tuam...


Arise (some older mss still read 'Swarm'), O Calvinists, and plead your cause. The doctrines of grace are mightily assailed by those who would proclaim with their father, “I will be like the Most High.” Set forth the biblical case for a sovereign God who is jealous for His glory. Disallow through disputation (and lampooning when needed) the damnable errors of those who have refashioned the great sola doctrines into a salvation-helper gospel that exalts the fallen will of man.
From every corner, in every thread exalt the right of God to do whatsoever He pleaseth. Be not dismayed by persistent anthropocentric rantings. Blessed are you when they revile you for the sake of the truth. Happy are ye when the Servetus card is played and the strawmen are paraded before you for He who is enthroned in heaven reigns. http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2010/01/calvinists-are-swarming-over-on-free.html

sw: So, where Madrid was only observing the "rennovation" of the GRPL and call to "swarm" the Calvinists, actually quoting something from that forum, White only attacks the persons of Madrid, Armstrong and Akin. Well, yes, he did attack the AGE of Akin's arguments - but again "age" has no relevance to truth. White does not assail ANY substance in Akin's articles. Oh, and if White is ready to really engage me yet, there are several unanswered challenges to him here:

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/jrw
 
sw: I fully expect that if there is ANY answer to this at all, it will be scoffing, character assassination upon me and a complete avoidance of ANY substance at all. Will White deal with the fact that he misused Scripture in regard to 1 Cor. 3:10-15? Will White finally deal with the, at least 29 enumerated errors from our first live "debate" from his Dividing Line webcast? Again, I would be humbly pleased to be proven wrong in my prediction here and find that White actually respectfully responded to the challenges, or even ONE of the challenges before him. So yes, let the reader decide - and wait to see what sort of response, if any, is forthcoming.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

PS- Slight edits made today, and I noticed the "white boxes" in the 1 Cor. 3:10-15 article have disappeared and will have to fix those later.