James White has replied again. His latest reply is pure misdirection. It contains two paragraphs, the first of which consists of jellied sarcasm and the second of which is a renewed attempt to misdirect the audience by reissuing challenges as to what he’d like me to talk about instead of his recent errors.
These errors, one will recall, were the following:
1) White referred to “the biblical definition of a saint,” implying that there is such a thing.
There’s not.
There are several different biblical uses of the terms corresponding to “saint” (Gk., hagios, Ar. qaddish, Hb., qadhosh), and we must be sensitive to these uses.
2) White said that “in Roman Catholicism a saint is a person who has more merit than temporal punishment upon their soul at death, so that they do not need to pass through purgatory for cleansing, but are fit for the presence of God immediately.”
This is not only false, it is preposterous. In common Catholic speech, the term “saint” means either “someone who is in heaven” or “someone who has been canonized.”
The closest White comes to admitting he was wrong is when in his first reply he says:
Obviously, the term “saint” is then used of those who have been cleansed and “left” purgatory at a later time, but I wasn’t addressing that usage in explaining the basics of the Roman position [emphasis in original]
This is not an admission of error because it implies that there is a usage of the term “saint” that corresponds to the one White proposed. He thus remains in the wrong.
Suppose that I said:
In Evangelical Protestantism, a minister is a person who has more fervor than he has book learning, so that he does not need to pass through seminary for education but is fit for preaching in the pulpit immediately.
White would rightly object to this characterization, and it wouldn’t be much of a defense for me to say:
Obviously, the term “minister” is then used of those who have been eduated and “left” seminary at a later time, but I wasn’t addressing that usage in explaining the basics of the Evangelical position
There is simply is no established Evangelical usage reserving the term “minister” for those who have not gone through seminary (there might be among certain extra-snarky Fundamentalists, but I’m not talking about them), and in the same way there is no Catholic usage reserving the term “saint” for those who have not gone through purgatory. White is simply wrong and trying to hide it behind huffing and puffing and misdirection.
The reason this stings White so much is that he thought he was safe here. If you read his original post, he’s setting up a classic sneer–as he so often does–between his own “biblical faith” and “man-centered religion.” The first horn–or perhaps we should say, nostril–of the sneer is when White introduces “the biblical definition of a saint.” Here he is setting up the “biblical faith” element, with which he wishes to identify himself. The second horn–or nostril–is when he introduces his nonsense about what a saint is in Catholic theology. The content of this nonsense is meant to make Catholicism look bad as being a “man-centered religion” of “works.”
Thing is: A person only tends to sneer at others when he thinks he is on safe ground. It is thus very surprising and upsetting to have it suddenly turn out that he is wrong. The effect is like having a door pop open and bop you in the nose.
Unable to say “Oww! Okay, I was wrong in what I said, and I shouldn’t have been sneering,” White thus turns to misdirection.
Exactly, why address Mr. White’s challenges just so he can misdirect the discussion again?
And as long as Mr. White maintains that you have “..ignorance of the most basic elements of Greek grammar and syntax” then what is the point in entertaining his challenges? It seems that White lacks the most basic elements of respect.
Nicely put, Jimmy!
Jimmy,
no one here will deny that he made a mistake and has not owned up to it. You are right, however… I *do* hope to see you interact with what he has claimed about your use of the Greek in 6:44. If you *did* happen to err in your usage you will only show your ability to admit that, if you didn’t err – then showing him to be in error (again) would only make his claims look more empty – maybe people would be less likely to be lead astray by his argument that Catholic apologists lack the ability/exegetical prowess to deal with the text in a meaningful way.
At least he tried to supply with with some information that you can use. It’s a start, no?
Pax,
Chris Ference
Jimmy,
just so you know – He responded yet again…
I hope you look/listen to the links he provided… at least he tried to supply you with some of the info you asked for.
No – he didn’t own up to his error…
Pax,
Chris
I can’t get that audio clip to work. 🙁
Jimmy,
There’s been a lot of ink (electrons?) spilled in the last several weeks over Mr. White. It’s probably not worth any more time. You have other topics to cover, and any more coverage of Mr. White just inflates his importance. Anyone who has half a brain can see through him, and the rest are too stubborn to change. Move on, Jimmy. Let Mr. White rant on, that men may know him mad.
I agree. Just ignore the man.
i would rather see you expound on other topics and not waste any more of your precious time on him. We know that you are right, and the Catholic church is the Fullness of Faith.
Great job responding to White’s rant. Not only in rebutting him, but also in demonstrating his less then sincere tactics.
Unbelievable. Jimmy responds to White’s inaccurate comments about saints, then insists on only arguing about “the inceptive aorist”. Unbelievable.
I guess I understand why White has a “blog”, and yet won’t put a section for comments. Wouldn’t want anyone pointing out his errors directly on his site, I guess.
What is this about an “inceptive aorist”? White seems to refer to it quite a lot…
Sean, I wonder about that too. Which is why it would be nice if that clip played.
An inceptive aorist is a use of the aorist tense that focuses on the beginning (inception) of the action spoken of by the verb.
The question is whether the relevant verbs in John 6:44 are focusing on the beginning of the action or not.
Jimmy,
I’d like to hear your comments on something:
It appears to me that these set of verses teach complete predestination (which is truly, the only type of predestination), because Christ says he “will raise him up on the last day.” Now, if we understand that predestination is certain not only formally, but also materially, then, we should be able to acknowledge that Christ not only will not fail, but cannot fail (God forbid that His forknowledge would be refuted!). John 6:44 says: No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. And I will raise him up in the last day (Douay-Rheims). If we conclude (and I don’t think it’s a stretch at all) that the “him” that the Father draws to the son, is the same “him” that is raised up on the last day, then, we must conclude that this verse teaches predestination. I see the verb “draws” as an eternal choice on the part of the Father, and I think it would neither lose nor gain any more impact if John stated: No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, “predestined” him. And I will raise him up in the last day.
Now we all recognize that a predestined person cannot fail to receive final conversion or perseverance in good. “No man can come.” What does it mean to come to Christ in this verse? We are told in v.40 that the present tense verbs “seeing” and “believing” is descriptive of those that always come to Christ. So, in my opinion, to come to Christ in v.44 is not baptism, or the first divine illumination in the soul, that turns it towards God. But the whole series of graces (from baptism to final conversion) that infallibly executes and saves this person.
I’m very open to hearing correction of my view point, but I do not know another way of how to understand this verse without doing injury to the text. I’m not a textual critic, since I have a very limited understanding of greek, but I do understand how to make theology “work.” I hope to hear your comments.
Dóminus vobíscum,
Daniel Jones
Daniel:
FWIW, ditto from another non-expert non-apologist. 🙂
I think he would rather argue the definition of a saint than try to explain John 6:44.
Let’s remember one thing about James White: he lacks the sacraments of the Eucharist.
If we believe the Jesus if truly present, Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity, in the Eucharist, and that He has power to transform our souls when we receive Him devoutly–then is it any wonder that a man who has lacked this treasure trove of graces struggles with snideness and lack of humility? White is to be pitied above all things, because God has not yet given him the grace to see the truth of the Catholic faith. We know that salvation is a gift from God, and it is a mystery why He chooses to bestow this gift on some and not on others. Suffice it to say, God has not yet chosen to enlighten White as to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. So rather than quarrel, let us pray for him, and beseech that God would show him mercy.
A very poignant reminder of love for neighbor (enemy?), Christine.
I just want to say that despite the catholic teachings on sainthood, it remains pretty clear that bibilcally, every believer is considered a saint, by rights of believing in Jesus.
Now, if we want to have other usages for the word, like those canonized by the church, that is fine, but we can’t call that biblical. And while these canonized people are great examples of faith, and it is great that they are recognized and held up as examples, their canonization certainly does not gain them anything in God’s eyes – it is merely a human recognition.
And the whole idea of praying to saints, including the devoted, faithful, and yet sinful Mary (sinful in the same way we are all sinful), is extra-biblical, if not anti-biblical. There is one mediator between God and man, Jesus. I’ll pray to him – you can pray to dead sinners/saints if you think it makes a difference.
I know there is a long history of doing so, and plenty of well-established Catholic apologies for these practices, but you might as well pray to your dead ancestors like the pagans do – it’s the same thing. Just don’t call it biblical.
Thank you, Jimmy, for replying to James White. I know it gets tedious, but people do believe his lies. I have been to world mag’s blog and the idea that Catholics work their way to heaven as well as recommendations to see his blog show up repeatedly. Of course, most of the fundamentalists do not want to read articles on the Catholic sites explaining our beliefs. I don’t think they have the patience to read any more than three or four lines at most. Thanks again….it is a service to real ecumenism.
seeker wrote:
“but you might as well pray to your dead ancestors like the pagans do – it’s the same thing. Just don’t call it biblical.”
“I am the G-d of Abraham, and the G-d of Isaac, and the G-d of Jacob’? He is not G-d of the dead, but of the living.” (Matthew 22:32)
“He is not G-d of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.” (Mark 12:27)
“Now He is not G-d of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him.” (Luke 20:28)
Do you know what isn’t biblical? The belief that the Saints are DEAD.
This is something that Protestants simply refuse to acknowledge.