JAMES WHITE’S WAR AGAINST MARY FULL OF GRACE

A Further Illustration of James White’s Inconsistency

James White has built his reputation by debating Roman Catholics where he employs arguments which sound reasonable at first glance. Yet once a person begins to dig a little deeper it then becomes apparent that White’s claims are either shallow, inconsistent, or just outright deceptive and dishonest. As one studies the issues deeply it becomes clear that White engages in circular reasoning and is grossly inconsistent.

Take, for instance, the form of argumentation White employs against the Catholic interpretation of Luke 1:28 where the blessed Mother is called kecharitomene by the angel Gabriel, a term which has led many to see a strong hint to Mary being conceived without the corruption of sin in order to become a befitting vessel for the Son of God to tabernacle in for the express purpose of taking on human flesh from her holy, consecrated flesh.

Here’s what White wrote in response to Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid:

Mr. Madrid’s sole comment on this passage is, “This is a recognition of her sinless state.” How does Pat know this? He doesn’t say. But Pat’s boss, the head of Catholic Answers, Karl Keating, at least attempted a fuller discussion in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. In speaking of the Greek term, kecaritomene, he alleged:

The newer translations leave out something the Greek conveys, something the older translation conveys, which is that this grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene is charis, after all) is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed must not only have been as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life, from conception. That is, she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace” or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way. This is just what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds… (p. 269).

Perhaps Pat just didn’t have the room to put all that into his article. Or, we could hope, he didn’t include it, because he recognizes that the above quotation goes so far beyond anything a serious exegete of the passage in Greek could possibly say that it rivals the attempts made by Mormons to substantiate the concept of men being exalted to the status of a God by citing Romans 8:17. This can be seen by examining the term in question, the perfect passive participle kecaritwmenh. Does the term carry an entire doctrine, unknown in the rest of the New Testament, unheard of by the first three centuries of the Christian Church, in itself? Or are modern Roman Catholic interpreters reading into this term a tremendous amount of material that was never intended by Luke? (James White: A Biblical Basis for the “Immaculate Conception”?, April 29, 1998; bold emphasis mine)

And in his Oct. 9, 1996 debate with Gerry Matatics concerning the Marian doctrines (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7k614h-28A&t=3852s), here’s what White said in his opening statements regarding Luke 1:28:

“Did Luke mean to indicate when he wrote Luke 1:28 that Mary was immaculately conceived? Or when he recorded the Magnificat and Mary talks about “God my Savior,” did Luke mean to indicate… did Mary mean to indicate that she actually knew that she had been peremptorily redeemed–a concept that did not develop for over a thousand years after the writing of the New Testament? That was rejected by the majority of the fathers when it was brought up? Are we to actually understand that’s what she understood? We have to put ourselves in the context of the writers themselves and ask ourselves the question is this what they meant? Or is someone taking a doctrine that comes from another source?”

He went to repeat this assertion in his concluding statements:

“I submit to you yet once again when Luke wrote Luke 1:28, when Mary uttered the words of the Magnificat and talked about “God my Savior,” did she have in her mind the idea that she was immaculately conceived? Is that what you really believe is going on here?”

White is infamous for repeating the mantra, “inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument,” and yet he proves to be inconsistent since elsewhere he rejects this precise form of argumentation when used against the Deity of Christ.

Note what White wrote in response to leading Arian polemicist and former Jehovah’s Witness apologist Greg Stafford’s explanation of Thomas’ confession to Jesus being his Lord and God in John 20:28:

5. Attempts by Stafford in Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended (Huntington Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1998), 202-206 (Stafford mainly follows David D. Schuman’s unpublished work, Did the Apostle Thomas Call Jesus “God” at John 20:28?), to obscure such a plain passage are circular at best. Stafford and others point to the fact that Thomas uses the nominative forms Kyrios and Theos rather than the vocative forms (the vocative case being the case of direct address). However, as A. T. Robertson pointed out, this is hardly relevant. In his A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 465-466, Robertson points out uses of the nominative in the place of the vocative (such as Revelation 4:11, Axios ei, ho Kyrios kai Theos hemon, “Worthy are You, O Lord our God–”, where both “Lord” and “God” are identical in form to John 20:28, and yet no one would argue that God himself is not being directly addressed), and says of our passage:

In Jo. 20:28 Thomas addresses Jesus as ho Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou, the vocative like those above. Yet, strange to say, Winer calls this exclamation rather than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas was satisfied as to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him after the resurrection. Dr. E. A. Abbott follows suit also in an extended argument to show that Kyrie ho Theos is the LXX way of addressing God, not ho Kyrios kai ho Theos. But after he had written he appends a note top. 95 to the effect that “this is not quite satisfactory. For xiii. 13, phoneite me ho Didaskalos kai ho Kyrios, and Rev. 4:11–ought to have been mentioned above.” This is a manly retraction, and he adds: “John may have used it here exceptionally.” Leave out “exceptionally” and the conclusion is just.

Therefore, we have examples of the use of the nominative used for the vocative in John (John 13:13 and Revelation 4:11). Therefore, there can only be one reason why the plain, obvious meaning of this passage is denied, and that reason comes out plainly in Stafford’s comments. While admitting that Jesus can be called “Lord and God,” he limits this to a mere representative position, focuses not upon the passage but upon John 20:17 (see comments in text), and concludes, “What is certain about John 20:28 is that Thomas’ words are in no way an affirmation of anything agreeable to Trinitarianism, for Thomas had no concept of a consubstantial Trinity.” This merely begs the question while ignoring the impact of the words of Thomas. (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering The Heart of Christian Belief [Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN 1994], p. 204; bold emphasis mine)

We couldn’t have said it any better since White’s objection “merely begs the question while ignoring the impact of the words of” the Angel Gabriel to the blessed Mother!

As the old adage goes, “Physician, heal thyself!”

The fact of the matter is that the Holy Bible itself testifies that a text’s deeper, richer meaning may not be apparent to the original recipients or even to the inspired emissary commissioned to record the text of Scripture.

In some cases, this may be due to a person’s unbelief and/or unwillingness to accept God’s revelation because of certain traditions or presuppositions which hinder an individual from accepting God’s truth.

Note what the following passages state:

“But as for me, I heard but did not understand; so I said, ‘My lord, what will be the outcome of these events?’And he said, ‘Go your way, Daniel, for these words will be kept secret and sealed up until the end time.’” Daniel 12:8-9

“And He could not do any miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them.And He was amazed at their unbelief.” Mark 6:5-6

“And the disciples had forgotten to take bread, and did not have more than one loaf in the boat with them.And He was giving orders to them, saying, ‘Watch out! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod.’And they began to discuss with one another the fact that they had no bread.And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, ‘Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet comprehend or understand? Do you still have your heart hardened?Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember,when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces you picked up?” They said to Him, ‘Twelve.’ ‘When I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken pieces did you pick up?’ And they said to Him, ‘Seven.’And He was saying to them, ‘Do you not yet understand?’” Mark 8:14-21

“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them at the present time. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.” John 16:12-13

“And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual people, but only as fleshly, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to consume it. But even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like ordinary people? For when one person says, ‘I am with Paul,’ and another, ‘I am with Apollos,’ are you not ordinary people? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.” 1 Corinthians 3:1-5

“Concerning him we have much to say, and it is difficult to explain, since you have become poor listeners.For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the actual words of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to distinguish between good and evil.” Hebrews 5:11-14

Therefore, just because Thomas may not have had later theological formulations of the Trinity in view, which took centuries to hammer out, this does not mitigate the plain import of his confession to Jesus being God Almighty in the flesh, since he is the unique divine Son who is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit in essence.

After all, the Scriptures are emphatic that Jehovah is the only Lord God that a believing Israelite can ever confess and put their trust in:

“Now God spoke all these words, saying: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.” Exodus 20:1-3

“(for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),” Exodus 34:14

“Rouse Yourself and awake for my judgment, for my cause, my God and my Lord.” Psalm 35:23

Hence, the only way Thomas could ever confess Jesus as his very Lord and God, with Christ accepting his confession, is if the Son is Jehovah God in the flesh.

In the same manner, just because Mary or Luke’s original audience may not have understood the deeper spiritual significance of Gabriel’s words to the blessed Mother, this does not rule out the fact that such a meaning was intended by the Holy Spirit, and which awaited subsequent generations of believers to discover and to unpack its richer spiritual significance as they were guided and illuminated by God’s Spirit.

White is, therefore, being inconsistent and engaging in circular reasoning at this point, since he has assumed what he has yet to prove. I.e., the ancient understanding of Luke 1:28 cannot possibly be correct since there is no way Mary could have been created in such a way as to be protected from the stain of sin.

In this respect, White is no better than Stafford since, like the latter, he is letting his biases and uninspired traditions affect the way he handles and interprets the text of God-breathed Scriptures.

In other words, it is no longer Sola Scriptura and Tota Scripture, but rather Sola Whitia and Tota Whitia, “only White” and “all of White”, since what really matters to White is how he explains the inspired Scriptures and what he thinks the Holy Bible means.

All scriptural references taken from the Modern English Version (MEV) of the Holy Bible.

FURTHER READING

One Mediator and One God Pt. 1

One Mediator and One God Pt. 2

Mary’s Purity and Sinlessness in the Church Fathers

ON MARY BEING FULL OF GRACE

MARY: ISRAEL PERSONIFIED

PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION OF GEN. 3:15 PT. 1

PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION OF GEN. 3:15 PT. 2

PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION OF GEN. 3:15 PT. 3

PAPAL INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 3:15

MARY AS QUEEN MOTHER