Does James White mistrust reason?

This is from a recent convert to Catholicism who challenged James White to a philosophical debate and was given the patented James White "God is glorified by the fact that you are damned" treatment:

So now let us fast forward the conversation back into this present context in order to make a point. I think what we see in White is a certain Christian tradition that does not hold ‘reason’ in a high regard. This is what is at the heart of so many problems, miscommunications, and controversies that Catholics and fundamentalists have. Catholics (among Christian traditions) see faith and reason as strong allies while fundamentalists, at best, see reason as a weak ally to faith. I think this can especially be seen in the whole Calvinism debate (personal responsibility, the nature of God etc.). This is why I think discussing the issues of faith and reason or faith and philosophy are vital for true ecumenical dialog.

Lastly, though it bothers me to say this, I hope people stay away from White. Not because I don’t want them to hear his arguments against Rome, rather, I think the man is a hindrance to beneficial dialog that could be had with certain Christian traditions. White not only has a reputation of being prideful but he also has a reputation of being very uncharitable and down right rude. There is a part of me that wishes I could post personal emails in order to demonstrate this, however, being that it is illegal, merely testifying of this will have to do.

Does James White really mistrust reason?

On the one hand, that seems accurate, but on the other hand, I tend to see Calvinism as an extremely rationalistic system.  Frankly though I'm not as knowledgeable about Calvinism as I ought to be.

Feel the Reformed Love.

Apparently, "Turretinfan" finds it noteworthy that anyone would dare - dare! - cast a light on his recent example of "Christian love." 

Roman Confusion


Devin Rose posted some less than complimentary thoughts (and Peter Sean Bradley tagged on) about Reformed apologists (myself as an example). Rather than dwelling on the caricature drawn from Les Miserables, I'd like to address one point that seems to be a common misconception:

Under Reformed Protestantism, God has predestined the elect to salvation and the reprobate to damnation. Being a faithful Catholic therefore means, practically by definition, that you are a reprobate. And here’s the kicker: if you are one of the reprobate, many of the passages from the Gospel on forgiving your brother and helping him do not apply (at least as they interpret them). Once you cross the Tiber, you are anathema and damned.

If you leave a gospel-preaching church for Rome, of course we do (or ought) to treat you as lacking a credible profession of faith. Normally, for such a departure from the faith, a Reformed church will provide the Biblical discipline of excommunication.

That discipline, however, is discipline not condemnation. Through excommunication, it is hoped that a person will be brought back to the faith. It is hoped that he will see the error of his ways, repent of his sin, and return to the flock of Christ.

There is certainly no judgment as to the election or reprobation of the person. Only God knows who the elect and reprobate are - moreover, "to him that is joined to all the living there is hope," (Ecclesiastes 9:4) and we hold out that hope even for the most anti-Reformed, anti-Evangelical member of the "Called to Communion" blog.

It is our desire to see those who have apostatized from the church of Christ brought back to her. I realize that pointing out that the church of Rome is a synagogue of Satan is going to make those in the church of Rome unhappy - surely it made the people unhappy to whom the phrase was originally applied. Nevertheless, the point of such comments is to warn those of the danger.

When I tell you that your house isn't comfortable warm, it's on fire, I'm not attacking your house or pouring out vitriol against your air conditioning unit. It's an expression of love to warn those who we care about to avoid danger - not an expression of hatred.

One might think that Mr. Rose would appreciate this, since he wrote:

To their credit, they have this hatred for the Catholic Church (or “Romanism,” as you will hear) because they believe it is leading people away from Jesus and the Gospel. And good for them! If I believed that some church or denomination was doing that, I would oppose it too–perhaps not using their same vitriol and methods–but I would not want people to follow those beliefs.

And Rome does lead people away from the Gospel, encouraging them to trust in Mary, angels, martyrs, and saints and not in God alone - requiring their submission to a man who sits on an earthly throne in an earthly palace, claiming to be the earthly head of the church.

But unto us, there is one Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Got that?

OK, here's the question.  How does the statement of Turretinfan in this post ...:

There is certainly no judgment as to the election or reprobation of the person. Only God knows who the elect and reprobate are - moreover, "to him that is joined to all the living there is hope," (Ecclesiastes 9:4) and we hold out that hope even for the most anti-Reformed, anti-Evangelical member of the "Called to Communion" blog.

...square with his statement in his comment:

Turretinfan said...


David,

You've turned your back on Christ and the church to follow Rome. You don't get to claim His blood.

At least, as it stands, when you come before the Lord, he will simply tell you "I never knew," despite your claims.

-TurretinFan

Answer: it doesn't.  TurretinFan is claiming an ability to judge the stae of David's soul "as it stands now."  In doing that Turretinfan is claiming an ability and a prerogative that no pope or apostle has ever claimed. The purpose and effect of excommunication was never understood to "damn" someone, but rather it was understood to leave the excommunicated to their own devices to make their own way - as essentially as impossible as that might be.

While no pope has ever declared that anyone is in Hell, Turretinfan seems to think that he has an ability to reach that determination on his own authority.

Amazing.

And, if that's the case, then why is Devin Rose wrong?  It is a very small step from deciding that you believe that a person is damned "at least as it now stands" to deciding that they were eternally damned, and then to deciding that they are not your brother and that the gospel's commands to forgive one's brother do not apply.

So, apart from a droit de seigneur of logic - i.e., it is not true because we say it is not true - why is Devin Rose wrong?

Here is the original Lex Communis post.

Beckwith v. White.

Former Evangelical Theological Society president turned Catholic Francis Beckwith is discussing his position relative to uber-calvinist James White.

Check it out if you like that kind of thing.

Funny Stuff.

It seems like only two months ago that uber-Calvinist, and joyful exponent of the idea that "God glories in the damnation of apostates," James White, was directing his legions against this humble blog because I had missed the by-line of a post.

Well, apparently, that kind of thing is so common that he has gone to the effort of redesigning his blog to actually make the authors by-lines readable because: " For some reason folks just don't see the "by" line at the bottom of the blog articles, so I am always being asked to comment on materials I did not write."

About time, and kind of proves my point.

As a debater, White is a classic. As a person I would trust to admit the truth if it was inconvenient to his debating position, not so much.

That's a pity.