I may (or may not) post a few thoughts on White’s rant-response later, but I thought I’d take a moment to answer something a couple of commenters touched on: my answering “challenges” White has issued soliciting responses on particular subjects.
My schedule is extremely busy, and I don’t have time to do a lot of things. One thing I don’t have time to do is read James White’s blog very often. As a result, I am blissfully unaware of many of the “challenges” I suspect he has made to me. Most have probably quietly gone off into the nether regions of his blog archives without me ever seeing them. The same goes for his webcast, which I don’t listen to. If, as he said in his reply, he recently played comments of mine from a debate years ago and asked for clarification of them, I wouldn’t know it, ’cause I don’t listen to his show. Neither, for that matter, do I read his books. He apparently thinks that I ought to respond to something that he wrote about James 2, but as I don’t own a copy of the book in question and haven’t read it, I wouldn’t know what it is he’s referring to.
The world is a big place, and the world of ideas is even bigger. I simply don’t have the time to monitor James White’s activities on a daily basis. Since (despite my open invitation to do so) he seems unwilling to pick up the phone and actually talk to me, it’s a very hit or miss thing whether I will even be aware of challenges he may toss my way. I suspect that, for the vast majority of such challenges, I never hear about them.
So that’s one way time enters the equation.
Another has to do with my ability to respond. At any given moment, I usually have several major writing projects I’m working on for work or for myself (this blog being one of the latter), and thus even if I become aware of one of White’s challenges, there’s a real question I have to face of whether at the moment it would be responsible of me to take time away from something else just to respond to whatever it is he’s demanding a response on.
Consider, for example, his latest challenge. He wants me to respond to something that was said in a debate the two of us had something like eight years ago. In order to justice to this request, I would need to:
1) Go find a copy of the debate in question.
2) Listen to it to see what was actually said (and thus make sure it isn’t being misrepresented).
3) Try to figure out wherever it may be that White has previously explained his concern (since he doesn’t explain it here; he just alludes to having made the demand in the past).
4) Go look up and read that place.
5) Compose a response.
6) Polish and revise it to avoid the foreseeable criticisms White will make.
7) Publish it.
8) Interact with him over it later, since no matter what I say it will provoke another vehement, densely-worded, triumphalistic exposition from him about why he isn’t satisfied with the response and how this one again illustrates the inferiority of Catholic apologists (and me in particular) and the superiority of Calvinism (and himself in particular).
9) Get tired of dealing with him.
10) And, finally, quit responding again–in the knowledge that he is likely to begin demanding further clarifications on the loose ends of this exchange for the next eight years.
His demand regarding James 2 is even worse since the performance of the above steps would be complicated by the fact that, even after I located the book, I would have to read it and try to determine what in it he is referring to. That’s a very dicey proposition, and he would be almost certain to accuse me of not responding to the thing he wanted me to respond to, or not responding in the depth he wanted, or not responding with the attitude he wanted, or not responding with a proper understanding of the context in which he had written, or not responding to all the other things he’d like me to respond to.
A third way time enters the equation involves the question of prudence. Since he won’t ever be satisfied (and, as his latest response continues to illustrate, he is incapable of admitting publicly that he’s simply wrong), there’s a risk that by dropping everything just in order to respond to the latest demand by James White that you will habituate him to this kind of treatment and thus encourage a repetition of the behavior in the future, leading to a further consumption of time as the cycle repeats itself in the future.
There are also considerations besides time. One is the general frustration factor in dealing with White’s attitude. Another is the fact that responding at this juncture would reward him in his efforts at misdirection.
That is, after all, what his huffing and puffing about John 6:44 and James 2 is. He brings those up to try to misdirect the reader from the fact that I have pointed out several howling errors on his part. A responsible person would say something like, “Well, yeah, it looks like I was wrong” or even “Well, yeah, I may be wrong, so I’ll check into this more” or “I phrased myself sloppily, so I’ll try to write more clearly.” But, since White seems unable to ever admit error on his part, he huffs and puffs about context (which wasn’t in or linked in the entry) and who he was writing for, and he throws demands around about why don’t I respond to what he’d like me to respond to and thus take attention away from the errors in what he wrote.
I’m very disinclined to reward such behavior, though time is still the primary factor.
Having said all that, I’m not averse to answering specific questions if White can summon up the wherewithal to pose his questions politely and concisely, in a way that doesn’t require me to go look up lots of sources.
For example: “It seems to me that John 6:44 means THIS, but you one said something that gave me the impression that it means THAT. Did I understand you correctly, are you still of that view, and if so, why do you prefer your interpretation to mine?”
That would be a nice, reasonable way to ask. As opposed to:
So let’s compare things: I have pointed out the glaring incapacity of James Akin as a biblical exegete regarding comments he has made in public debate on John 6:44. His erroneous comments are available on the web. In comparison, Akin chooses to focus upon three sentences in a blog entry, and even then, can only ignore the offered context and insist upon fuller definitions. I’d think one of the chief figures of Catholic Answers could produce a little better effort in light of the three dozen debates we offer on Roman Catholicism and the numerous books in print relevant to the topic. Maybe Mr. Akin would like to comment on the exegesis of James 2 in The God Who Justifies that directly refutes his own claims on that passage? Let’s call Mr. Akin to a little higher standard, shall we?
Perhaps we should call Mr. White to a little higher standard as well.
“A third way time enters the equation involves the question of prudence. Since he won’t ever be satisfied (and, as his latest response continues to illustrate, he is incapable of admitting publicly that he’s simply wrong), there’s a risk that by dropping everything just in order to respond to the latest demand by James White that you will habituate him to this kind of treatment…”
I think you make excellent points, but in my experience this one is the best. It reminds me of my daughter’s behavior (she is 3), sometimes when she starts crying there is no way to appease her, and you have to let it run its course.
I’m sure some of White’s advocates will say that I am attacking him personally by saying that. That is not my intent. It is just a personal observation after following him for the last few years. However even if it is a personal attack I stand by the example I gave because it appears to me to be true. White certainly doesn’t mind spending most of his articles personally attacking others.
Jimmy,
I agree that you shouldn’t go down that very long rat hole. I was one that did write and ask that responses be posted on your site. I was assuming by his context that his challenges were heard and surely you had responded. I now understand that he seems to be throwing things at you hoping to 1.) provoke you into a verbal skirmish and 2.) make people think that you have backed down from a legitimate challenge.
How you keep up your schedule is amazing to me. Just wait until you remarry (God willing) and have children!
God bless
I’ve noticed that White has a pattern of accumulating pet issues that he deploys as a kind of recurring prologue in writing to/about Jimmy, to buffer any current or ongoing discussion in order to obfuscate whatever is the current issue.
Returning the favor, Jimmy, may I suggest that from now on any time you address White you begin by returning to the claim below and asking him if he can produce a single Catholic source to substantiate it?
“…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.”
Mr. White, has ANY Catholic magisterial, theologial, or devotional work of any weight EVER used the word “saint” in this unique sense? Can you produce a single relevant Catholic source substantiating your claim that such a usage exists?
Since you later claimed, by way of attempted clarification, that the context of your definition was your attempt to give your readers some insight into the Catholic process of canonization, can you produce any Catholic text relating to canonization that conveys any connotation of not passing through purgatory as part of sainthood?
Anything? Anything?
If you cannot produce one single text, are you willing to admit that you misspoke?
Would that be so hard to say? “I misspoke. What I meant to say was that according to Catholicism if one dies with grace or merit on one’s soul, one becomes a saint, and that if one dies without any liability to punishment on one’s soul, one becomes a saint immediately after death without having to pass through purgatory.”
You know, Mr. White, nearly a decade ago in a listserv discussion with you, I had to admit that I misspoke about a point of Catholic magisterial teaching. I’m sure you don’t remember. Of course, I was just one anonymous Catholic, and you’re James White. Can James White admit that he misspoke on a matter of Catholic theology?
It’s not a question of whether you did err. Everyone can see that you did. The question is, can you admit it? Or must you invent an imaginary “Catholic” usage that you can’t substantiate in order to rationalize your error?
Hey Jimmy,
Is it really wise to be engaging this James White guy at all? I don’t live anywhere near California, so I don’t know how much of a following this guy has in your neck of the woods…but it seems to me from looking at his website and from what you’ve said about him that this guy is a little bit wacko. He’s certainly not mainstream evengelical or protestant.
By engaging him, don’t you think you are bringing yourself down to his level and maybe giving him some credibility he doesn’t deserve? Would it not be better to just ignore him and take on some more serious mainstream heavy-hitters from the evangelical/protestant world?
Of course, I’m no apologist, so you know better…just my $.02.
The point you miss from James White is that you quickly respond to minor things he writes about in his blog, but seem to ignore the major ones. You had time to nit-pick his comments on saints, but don’t have time to answer a bigger issue.
Jimmy,
I think that he finally outlined the concise points that you were looking for. Apart from the challenges being dropped (not o mention the attitude) – I would really like to see a Catholic apologist address these points sometime. I am tired of seeing the apologists in the Reformed camp making the claim that their Catholic counterparts simply don’t have the skill/ability/exegetical prowess to deal with the biblical texts on any meaningful level. When it comes to Sola Fide and Divine election the Reformed apologists always bring numerous texts (and seemingly convincing exegesis) to support their claims – this has *always* bothered me a little.
If you have time, Mr. Akin – please try to interact with his points on these issues…
Pax,
Chris
“The point you miss from James White is that you quickly respond to minor things he writes about in his blog, but seem to ignore the major ones. You had time to nit-pick his comments on saints, but don’t have time to answer a bigger issue.”
You are missing the larger point here. This was a case of an absolutely clear and undeniable mistake on an extremely basic point of Catholic soteriology, one that has major implications for many of White’s responses to the Catholic doctrine of justification. This is not just some minor gaffe about the definition of beatification; this is a fundamental error that carries over to numerous other contexts (in fact, I demonstrated in the previous thread that one of White’s previous arguments relied on the same misconception). The fact that the error was caught in the context of a minor issue doesn’t make the error itself any less serious, and the fact that neither you nor White sees the seriousness of the error is the best evidence that you don’t really understand the issue.
Well said, Jimmy – keep up the good work!
Agreed, Jonathan. I am becoming convinced — much to my astonishment, actually — that James White just flat-out doesn’t understand very basic principles of Catholic soteriology.
I am actually quite astonished, because a couple of days ago when somebody read me the White quote aloud without telling me it was White, I actually said out loud, “Well, if it weren’t so sloppy and ignorant, I would have guessed from the tone that it was James White.”
It certainly SOUNDED like White, with that snarky “For those familiar only with the biblical definition” etc. rhetoric. But I just implicitly took it for granted that White was WAY too careful and polished to make such obvious, clumsy factual misstatements about basic Catholic teaching. I was SURE it had to be some other, lesser anti-Catholic apologist, who was not as knowledgable about Catholicism and not as careful to avoid embarrassing misstatements of basic Catholic teaching (somebody more like Dave Hunt, say, although it didn’t sound like him).
I was quite sincerely startled to learn that, contrary to my relatively high opinion of White’s understanding, White actually was responsible for such a thoroughly misguided statement of basic Catholic soteriological belief. And I am still half incredulous at his almost surreal efforts to defend his claims by such tactics as implicitly equating guilt and punishment, inventing fictional usages of Catholic terminology, and ignoring entirely such issues as the difference between having NO liability to punishment and having “less” liability to punishment than merit (and even here I’m clarifying his confused statements by rephrasing in accurate Catholic terminology).
Candidly, I have to admit that that prior to this incident I had a healthy respect for James White’s understanding of Catholic teaching. I saw him debate a Catholic apologist one time, and I have to acknowledge that I was impressed with his preparation and rhetorical skills.
But this recent bloggging incident has actually forced me to reexamine the esteem in which I have held White’s understanding of Catholic teaching. Anyone who could actually say that having “more merit than punishment” will get you out of punishment entirely has clearly failed to grasp Catholic soteriology on a very basic level. I mean, as a young Evangelical fifteen years ago *I* would have known better than that.
I’m actually somewhat mystified, because I still believe that White is a bright guy, and the points in question are not hard to understand, and it’s in his professional interest to understand them, and I’m sure he has made some effort to do so. So what can account for his confusion? I am reluctant to contemplate moral or spiritual explanations, but I am genuinely at a loss to understand White’s seemingly clueless credibility implosion on this subject.
Steven,
I really enjoy your movie reviews!
I think you are, of course, correct in much of what you say about how things have been approached at AOmin… I do think that there is a lack of understanding on the finer points (and maybe some not so fine ones) of Catholic soteriology. I also agree that a clear mistake was made that was not owned up to. That being said, I still would like to see a Catholic apologist deal with these endless claims of exegetical superiority that are made by many a Reformed apologist. John 6:44 and James 2 are important scriptural citations when the differences between Catholic and Protestant doctrines are concerned, and I just wish someone had the time to give a response to these claims… It doesn’t have to be Jimmy Akin, I guess (though I like his style), but I would like to see these things addressed at some point.
Pax,
Chris Ference
p.s.
Did you see ‘The Human Stain’? If so, what say you?
Thanks, Chris!
Let’s not talk movies on Jimmy’s comments board… Feel free to drop me a line at SDG@decentfilms.com.
Steven:
ISTM that many in that camp are convinced that we are simply attempting to hide from our own doctrine, so they repeat error after error responding to the “honest Catholic position” (which has no relationship to the actual Catholic position). Mistrust seems to be the reason more than anything. Where you took Catholics at their word when you were evangelical, White and his associates view us as dishonest for refusing to address the “manifest inconsistencies” in our position, twisting history and even our own documents so that we can never be proved wrong and blindly following whatever arbitrary dogma the Magisterium hands down. I’m not sure what our motive for such a thing could even possibly be, but that doesn’t stop them from thinking it. My own theory is that the persistent adversarial nature of their interaction with Catholics leads them to demonize Catholics, much like the tendency of soldiers who are facing combat to characterize those they are fighting as less than human.
Chris:
I’m having a hard time figuring out why John 6:44 and James 2 are problem passages for Catholics. John 6:44 would, at best, only affirm predestination, and Catholics agree with predestination. James 2 is a powerful proof-text for Catholicism, and the best White could possibly do would be to show that it didn’t conclusively disprove Calvinism (because it clearly can’t be made to refute Catholicism). To be honest, I’m not even sure why White is spending so much time harping on them.