James White’s Relentless Sophistry in Our Live Chat

[In fact, St. Clement of Rome described an extra-biblical book as “Scripture” (I assume he would hold that the Bible was “passed down from the Apostles” and that Bishop White would grant the point). In his Letter to the Corinthians (aka First Clement), dated 95-96 A.D., he writes (23:3):

*

Let this Scripture be far from us where he says . . . .

*

Then he proceeds to cite a passage which is not in present-day Scripture (it is also cited in 2 Clement 11:2-4 – not considered to have been written by St. Clement, but perhaps the oldest Christian sermon extant: c. 100 A.D. -, where it is described as “the prophetic word”). The famous Protestant scholar J.B. Lightfoot speculated that it was from the lost book of Eldad and Modat mentioned by Hermas (Vis. 2.3.4).
*
Any citation, in fact, of a book as Scripture, whether it was or not, is an “extra-biblical tradition” since the biblical books (as decided by the Church and tradition) never list the books. White surely should have known this. But he wants to pass off this nonsense that Irenaeus thinking Jesus lived to fifty is the “earliest reference in all patristic writing to something ‘passed down from the Apostles’ that is not in Scripture.” It’s not so. The tradition of the biblical canon itself disproves it.
*
Furthermore, Clement teaches apostolic succession in 42:1-4 and 44:1-4 (“Our apostles . . . gave the offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die, other approved men
should succeed to their ministry . . .”), a notion that White rejects and regards as unbiblical.Finally, according to the eminent 19th-century Protestant patristics scholar Brooke Foss Westcott, there is some indication in Justin Martyr (100-165) of acceptance of an apostolic Tradition, including an oral component. After an exhaustive, remarkable 75-page exposition of Justin’s understanding of the canon of the New Testament. Westcott concludes:

*

There are indeed traces of the recognition of an authoritative Apostolic doctrine in Justin, but it cannot be affirmed from the form of his language that he looked upon this as contained in a written New Testament.
*
(A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980, from the 1889 sixth edition, 172) ]

*

I assume, then, you are not familiar with this particular issue? Okay, then let us use another example. Basil said that it was an apostolic tradition to baptize three times, facing east, forward. Upon what basis do you reject his testimony, if you do?
*
[again, I could hardly answer on the spot, completely unprepared, not even knowing this exchange was gonna take place. I had prepared myself to debate someone else. But note how White uses the “rapid-fire” approach. It’s the illusion of appearance of strength via mere method: one of the oldest tricks of sophistry in the book. This is the second thing he quickly introduces. Then he introduces a third: whether Mary sinned]
*
Patristic consensus over what period of time? For example, the “patristic consensus” through the end of the fourth century was that Mary had committed acts of sin. That is no longer the “view” taken by Rome.
*
[this is sheer nonsense (the second sentence above), as I will proceed to show, even on the spot, because it is so outrageously false]
*
The patristic period is generally considered to go up to John Damascene, no?
*
That all depends. :-)
*
[I don’t know what White thinks it “depends” on. According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (p. 504): “the patristic period is generally held to be closed with St. Isidore of Seville in the West and St. John of Damascus in the East.” White likes historian Philip Schaff, who described John Damascene as the “last of the Greek Fathers” (History of the Christian Church, Vol. IV: Chapter 14, section 144, p. 626). So why does he question (and “smile” about) this assumption of mine?]
*
No; some Fathers thought she sinned, but I don’t believe they were the majority, by any means.
*
[I was absolutely correct]
*
Would it follow, then, that you believe the “patristic consensus” up through John Damascene supports such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption?
*
[Note the sophistical topic-switching again. This is quite clever, albeit cynically transparent to anyone who understands rhetoric and debate. Having already introduced his third topic in about as many minutes: the actual sin of Mary and what Church fathers held on that, and having introduced a false summary of patristic views on that score, he now shifts to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption: the first being a greatly advanced development of the sinlessness of Mary and the second being another doctrine altogether. I’m now supposed to discuss — without notes and preparation — now, five relatively complex topics at once?]
*
Can you name 5 or 10 who thought that?
*
[I was still referring to the previous “sins of Mary” question. White would fire out a new question (like having 15 peas in a pea shooter) before I barely answered his last one. Anyone can see the foolishness of such a juvenile method of supposedly “seeking truth”]
*
Yes. Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil. Big names. :-) Even Anselm held Mary was born with original sin.
*
How about western fathers? Those are all eastern guys. :-)
*
[Now note the manifest sophistry here, as I will keep pointing out in the exchange itself. White’s original (non-factual) claim was: “the ‘patristic consensus’ through the end of the fourth century was that Mary had committed acts of sin.” Starting on this false premise, when asked to name names, he cites (correctly) four eastern fathers and no western ones. But patristic consensus includes both east and west. Therefore, if he can’t come up with western fathers believing as he claims, his assertion collapses. It’s as simple as that. Case closed. And White not only has to just name one or two fathers to prove his point; he has to establish “consensus”, which is far more difficult to do. But he quotes four men from the east and then a westerner who isn’t even in the patristic period.This is when the tide started to decisively turn in the debate, because I knew from the patristic knowledge in my head that White was out to sea and faltering even in his factuality, let alone any arguments he wished to ground upon these alleged “facts” that are actually falsehoods]
*
Anselm isn’t. :-)
*
Anselm was not a father.
*
[Bingo!]
*
Let’s hope not. :-) He was under orders…. just kidding.
*
[his humor was more successful than his arguments and pseudo-facts. I suggest that White stick to stand-up comic routines rather than attempted serious patristic argument]
*
All you’re doing now is helping to support Roman primacy and orthodoxy. The east had a host of errors. They split from Rome five times, and were wrong in every case by [the criteria of] their own later “orthodox” beliefs.
*
Hmm, so you are switching now to a Western “consensus”?
*
No, but your citing of only eastern fathers hardly suggests that this is overall “patristic consensus,” does it?
*
[this is ludicrous sophistry. I made the rather obvious point. White was the one claiming “patristic consensus.” Anyone knows that this means all fathers: east and west. He cites only eastern ones; I call him on it, and then he makes this dumb remark that I am calling for (or “switching” to) a “western consensus.” Unbelievable . . . but then it shows that he was on the ropes and was trying all the more to exercise sophistry to extricate himself from his foot firmly entrenched in his rather big mouth. I don’t think he is even conscious that he is doing this. Like Bill Clinton and lying, for Bishop White sophistry has so long been the trick of his trade in debating Catholics that it just comes out like breathing or blinking without having to think about it at all. He always has to oppose the Catholic, no matter how silly and absurd his objection may be. This is an absolutely classic case of poor debating and arguing on his part]
*
I would dispute that, actually,
*
[fine, then make an argument; but he never does. Instead he moves onto something else. The slippery fish / moving target / 101 topics routine, perfected by folks like Jehovah’s Witness evangelists and James White . . .]
*
But I’d like to stick to the issue I’ve raised here.
*
[White talking — with a straight face, apparently, actually serious — about sticking to the issue, after how he has behaved, is about the equivalent of an alcoholic saying we shouldn’t drink liquor . . .]
*
Is it your belief that these two dogmas are apostolic in origin?
*
First name me western fathers who thought Mary sinned, since you brought this up.
*
[my attempt to keep White on the subject and forcing him to face and to try to alleviate the difficulties I had raised for his position . . . And remember, I had hardly any experience at all in this sort of debate, whereas White was the big champion with dozens of oral debates in his past (as he never tires of bragging about). But he was faltering and choking and doing rather badly by this point . . . ]
*
Actually, Augustine’s influence regarding the universality of original sin had to be overcome for the Immaculate Conception to be contemplated and codified, sir. :-)
*
[lacking any good answer for my actual question, White obfuscates and engages in obscurantism (tried and true methods of the sophist) by changing the topic to original sin and Augustine’s view, rather than actual sin of Mary, which was his own original claim as to “patristic consensus”. This is very clever. But we can all see through it, especially when analyzed in this fashion. White loves “post-mortem” debate analysis. Well, now we have given him a bit of his own medicine]
*
But that’s a separate issue. Did Augustine think Mary sinned?
*
[note how I brought it right back to my actual question, Ted Koppel-style, refusing to play White’s game]
*
No, not in her personal life. But he did believe she contracted original sin, correct?
*
[the quick answer and then quickly moving on to another separate question, so as to do some quick damage control . . .]
*
There is the distinction between actual sin and original sin in Mary’s case.
*
Do you consider Tertullian a Western?
*
Yes.
*
Would you include Hilary? J.N.D. Kelly lists them both in that category. I think that makes six, does it not?
*
I’m not sure, but you started by discussing acts of sin, now you are switching to original sin.
*
Actually, for both Tertullian and Hilary, it would be acts of sin.
*
Okay, so you have two?
*
[I wrote in my commentary soon after the debate:

*

So Bishop White offers one western father (who held a quite “mild” opinion on the subject – not exactly a spectacular, bold dissent), and another in his heretical period, plus four eastern fathers (which I was already generally aware of – one always finds exceptions to the rule). This is what he considers a “patristic consensus.” I consider it a pathetic argument. Ludwig Ott states that the western patristic consensus was “unanimous.” Thus, Bishop White is trapped by the facts of history, not any rhetorical brilliance on my part. ]

*

Yes, two.
*
[how, then, is this a “consensus”? I recently wrote a book compiling patristic beliefs, and listed sixty Church fathers who are widely cited as such, up through John Damascene). White has provided us with exactly six names of fathers who held that Mary sinned (and of the two westerners, one later became a Montanist heretic and the other spoke of it just once, and rather mildly), or about 10% of the fathers (or reasonable facsimile thereof). And he wants us to think this is a “consensus”. How stupid does he think we are, anyway? Part of the method of sophistry (for those aware they are doing it, and I don’t think White is), is assuming that hearers are so dumb and ignorant that they can be fooled by the method in the first place]
*
May I ask how many you have that positively testify of the later Roman belief in the same time-period?
*
One second….consulting some papers.
*
[White didn’t give me any time to even look. He went right on to the next thing in his fertile mind]
*
Be that as it may, does it not follow from these considerations that there is no positive consensus upon this issue? The only relevant answer to that would be to ask, “Who wrote on the specific question of Mary’s sinlessness? Not many.”
*

As for Church Fathers who refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the New Eve (Eve was originally sinless or immaculate), Second Eve, sinless, spotless, pure, without stain, immaculate, the Ark of the Covenant, or (negatively) who never attributed any actual sin to her, we find the following:

*

Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Jerome, Eusebius, Ephraim, Ambrose, Augustine, Proclus, Theodotus, Peter Chrysologus, Andrew of Crete, Fulgentius, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Germanus, John Damascene.

*

That makes at least 22 fathers in the affirmative, compared to 5 who attributed sin to Mary (not counting the Montanist heretic Tertullian).]

*
Was this in Tertullian’s Montanist or semi-Montanist period? About how many fathers were there, in your estimation?
*
The Tertullian citation is De carne Chr. 7.

Sure enough, The Flesh of Christ (dated 208-212 A.D.) is from Tertullian’s semi-Montanist period. Protestants often fail to note the different theological periods with regard to citing Tertullian. Many will conveniently ignore this if a Tertullian quote suits their purpose (or else some are ignorant of the dating and/or of his later heresy altogether). Whichever the case with Bishop White, he failed to answer my question during the dialogue, thus illustrating another reason why these clarifying notes are important and useful. What I suspected turned out to be true. Whether Bishop White knew this beforehand or not, we don’t know, as he didn’t say.

*

White never answered my question about approximately how many fathers there were]

*

How many say she was without sin? That’s what you are asking? Actual sin?
*
I think you can see my point, can you not, Mr. Armstrong? If these concepts were, in fact, passed down through the episcopate, how could such widely differing church leaders be ignorant of these things?

Eusebius, the great Church historian . . . calls her panagia, “all-holy”. (PG, 24, 1033B)
*
Athanasius: . . . pure and unstained Virgin . . . (On the Incarnation of the Word, 8)
*
O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71, 216)
*
Ephraem: Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain. (Nisibene Hymns, 27, v. 8)
*
Gregory Nazianzen: He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor. (Sermon 38, 13)
*
Gregory of Nyssa: It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life. (On Virginity, 2; NPNF 2, Vol. V, 344)
*
[T]he power of the Most High, through the Holy Spirit, overshadowed the human nature and was formed therein; that is to say, the portion of flesh was formed in the immaculate Virgin. (Against Apollinaris, 6)
*
Ambrose: . . . Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22, 30)
*
Jerome: ‘There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ The rod is the mother of the Lord–simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself… Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord. (Letter XXII. To Eustochium, 19, 38; NPNF 2, Vol. VI, 29, 39)
*
Augustine: We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, chapter 42 [XXXVI]; NPNF 1, Vol. V)
*
Cyril of Alexandria: Hail, Mary Theotokos, Virgin-Mother, lightbearer, uncorrupt vessel . . . Hail Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of justice . . . (Homily 11 at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus)
*
Theodotus: Innocent virgin, spotless, without defect, untouched, unstained, holy in body and in soul, like a lily-flower sprung among thorns, unschooled in the wickedness of Eve . . . clothed with divine grace as with a cloak . . . (Homily 6, 11)
*
Leo the Great: For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother, and the infused power of the Divine Spirit had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself . . . (Sermon XXII: On the Feast of the Nativity, Part II; NPNF 2, Vol. XII)
*
Gregory the Great: The most blessed and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God . . . has completely surpassed the height of every elect creature. (In I Regum, 1, 5)
*
Andrew of Crete: . . . alone wholly without stain . . . (Canon for the Conception of Anne)
*
John Damascene: O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew. (Homily I on the Nativity of Mary) ]

*

The same way Luther was ignorant about baptismal regeneration, and Calvin of adult baptism. :-) Neither got it right, according to you.
*
[meant to convey the blatant double standard in White’s previous question. I could disprove his claim about the Mariology of the Fathers, but he couldn’t change the fact that both Luther and Calvin got major things wrong, by his own Baptist reckoning, some 700 years after the patristic period. In other words, anti-catholics always want to carp on and on about supposed “late inventions” while ignoring the host of those introduced by their own founders]