Assumption of Mary — Assumptions of White

by Steve Ray on August 16, 2007

I was notified that James White, the magisterial voice of Protestant anti-Catholics, had responded to my blog on the Assumption of Mary. Not only is he insulting and arrogant — though it may be his sorry attempt at humor and relational psychology – he is also wrong and sloppy. I hope to have time to respond to his huffing and puffing but don't know if I will have the time before I leave. If I do I want to answer well and that takes time — not matter what the topic.

By the way, White is usually the first to whine about people who use "ad hominem" arguments and comments against him. He even wept crocodile tears about it in one of our past correspondences. But James and I have not corresponded in years and the last time I did speak with him was in New York at his debate with Gary Michuta. I thouight we have a cordial meeting. Before that I invited him to lunch on one of my trips to Phoenix and he "No" explaining that to have lunch with little ole me would compromise the gospel. Geez, even Jesus ate with sinners! Plus he said he didn't like me and he only eats lunch with people he likes. Well, frankly, I dont' like him either, but I was willing to be charitable and see if we could find common ground and work toward liking each other. But he said no.

WhiteTroll.jpgInterestingly, and quite consistent with his usual inconsistency, White comments in his "Year of the Cat" blog entry that, "The past five days have set new all-time records for vitriolic nastiness, at least on the part of those devoted to Rome." Geez, what a thing to say from a guy who with no provocation wrote this sarcastically about me today — "Steve Ray, Catholic Convert Extraordinaire and king of on-location videography, world-traveler and sufferer of permanent safari hat-hair." So much for his consistent inconsistency.

(Picture of White as a troll taken from his blog. There is a certain resemblance.)

Will I respond to White and his assumptions? I hope so — if I have time. But he seems to historically have taken me more seriously than I have ever taken him. I am packing to lead a group in Israel and have another group schedule for Rome in October and another to Israel in November. I am also trying to finish another book for Ignatius Press, negotiating with EWTN to get our Footprints series on TV and have at least 10 speaking engagements in the next six weeks — and that does not even take into consideration my business and family — especially my grandkids :-). I long for the good old days when I could relax and respond to such diatribes and nonsense, but those days are long gone. Anyway, we'll see what time allows.

For my past discussion with the likes of White, visit here. To read Jimmy Akin's recent blog "James White Has Completely Lost It", click here. You can also read the 768+ comments that people have left in response on Jimmy's site.

By the way, here is what Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers says about conversing or debating with White on his blog entry linked above: "If you [White] can't immediately see that and make amends then no one, knowing that you are capable of this, should engage you in debate or discussions of any kind."

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

R. Chavez August 16, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Steve, James White truly is beneath your attention. This attack dog hasn’t learned a new trick in years and has stood by as those all around him have either converted outright or become much more sympathetic to the Catholic Church. The man is an island who is on an island and has no recourse but to lash out with incoherent and tired arguments against his very own mother, Mary.

Your work is very important and, personally, I’d rather see you contributing to the knowledge and faith of Catholics through your very worthwhile projects than busting out the whooping stick on a one trick pony whose been put out to pasture by the obsolescence of his own act.

My prayers are with you as you leave for Israel. Oh, and I will include Mr. White in my Roary intentions as well. God Bless.

Ron

William August 16, 2007 at 2:47 PM

White recently sent several emails trying to engage me in a debate. I found it strange that he would spend so much time and effort (some were a bit lengthy) trying to engage me. I have better things to do and would think he would as well.

Dani August 16, 2007 at 2:58 PM

James who?

David Waltz August 16, 2007 at 3:42 PM

IMHO, James White’s biggest problem is that his critiques of certain Catholic dogmas rest on a methodology which when turned on some of his doctrines cuts much more deeply.

For instance, he complains about the lateness of Assumption, and argues for a somewhat dubious development of the doctrine; yet, he admits in writing that the “gospel” which he embraces was “discovered” by “the Reformers”. (See http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-on-sufficiency-of-grace_13.html for documentation,)

Interestingly enough, the Protestant scholar, Alister McGrath in his highly regarded work, Iustitia Dei, confirms the incredible lateness of James’ “gospel”, and its dubious development. (See http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2007/08/apostasy-bringing-mormonism-into.html for more documentation.)

It would be nice if James (and other anti-Catholic apologists) would adhere to the same standards they set for Catholicism (but, I am not going to hold my breath).

Grace and peace,

David

Maureen :) August 16, 2007 at 8:00 PM

I’d just like to say, for the record, that I really like your safari hat :-)

Albert August 17, 2007 at 6:32 AM

R. Chavez mentioned, “The man (James White) is an island who is on an island and has no recourse but to lash out with incoherent and tired arguments against his very own mother, Mary.” I think Dr. White is just being Biblically and historically consistent. The early Christians were saved without believing in the dogma of the Assumption. Modern Christians are saved too without believing in it. The early Christians did not believe in this dogma and we shouldn’t either. :)

Carrie August 17, 2007 at 7:18 AM

James White’s biggest problem is that his critiques of certain Catholic dogmas rest on a methodology which when turned on some of his doctrines cuts much more deeply. David, White's doctrines rest on proper exegesis of the Bible, not on the traditions of men or gnostic documents. Can you give me a proper exegesis of the Bible that dogmatically defines the assumption of Mary?

Steve Ray here: Theresa, give me a "proper exegesis fo the Bible that dogmatically defines the Trinity or the canon of Scripture or the hyerstatic union of the two natures of Christ." White's doctrine rests on his "Baptist Reformed Tradition" and everything he teaches and says is in light of that tradition, not any perceived objectivity.

David Waltz August 17, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Albert wrote:

>>I think Dr. White is just being Biblically and historically consistent. The early Christians were saved without believing in the dogma of the Assumption. Modern Christians are saved too without believing in it. The early Christians did not believe in this dogma and we shouldn’t either.>>

And Carrie followed with:

>>David, White’s doctrines rest on proper exegesis of the Bible, not on the traditions of men or gnostic documents. Can you give me a proper exegesis of the Bible that dogmatically defines the assumption of Mary?>>

Me: Steve raises a very good point that I shall expand a bit. The early Christians (before Nicea and Chalcedon) did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as expounded James White in his book The Forgotten Trinity; the early Christians did not believe in the doctrine of “original sin” as does James; and the “gospel” as believed by James (and R.C. Sproul) was not taught by any Christian until the 16th century!

Fact is, all doctrine develops. The real question should be this: which Christian community has consistently developed the Church’s doctrine from the 1st century down to the 21st?

[As for the doctrine of the Assumption, see this recent essay: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/AssumptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm .]

Grace and peace,

David

Eric August 18, 2007 at 12:16 AM

"Steve Ray here: Theresa, give me a "proper exegesis fo the Bible that dogmatically defines the Trinity or the canon of Scripture or the hyerstatic union of the two natures of Christ." White's doctrine rests on his "Baptist Reformed Tradition" and everything he teaches and says is in light of that tradition, not any perceived objectivity." These doctrines you mention are well established in the scriptures, while I don't see any evidence for the assumption of Mary. Are you seriously comparing this with the dvinity of Christ?

Eric: Steve Ray here. Where is the canon of Scripture clearly established in Scripture? Where does scripture "well establish" the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ?

Leave a Comment

 

Previous post:

Next post: