Wednesday, September 15, 2010

James White Lies About His Supposed Non-Use of "Anti-" Terminology, and in so Doing Commits Blatant Hypocrisy, Exhibits Serious Log-in-the-Eye Disease


This is amazing stuff. I was just writing today about the blatant double standards (in terminology) of anti-Catholics TAO and Steve Hays. Lo and behold, I was listening to a White Dividing Line mp3, looking for something else that was mentioned on his blog notice, and his ridiculous and atrociously hypocritical comments made in passing jumped out of my headphones. Here is what he stated, direct from the audio transcript, starting at 23:41 and going to 25:18:

Remember, anti-Catholic, of course, is a buzz term; it's meant to stop thought, not create thought; it's meant to create divisions and walls, and it's just, you know, every time I hear someone calling me an anti-Catholic or an anti-Mormon or an anti-Muslim, or whatever, I realize this is a very rude, inconsiderate, and self-centered person, because I am a Reformed Baptist apologist: that's what I am. And I recognize that other persons who defend their faith; I call Muslims, Muslim apologists. I don't call 'em anti-Christian apologists. I don't call Roman Catholics anti-Protestant apologists. I mean, for many of 'em, that might not be a bad description, but I recognize that -- and I think any fair-minded person recognizes -- that I make a positive case for my faith. . . . any honest-hearted person will admit that I should simply be identified as a Reformed Baptist apologist; a Christian apologist in general, but specifically, if you wanna go for the denominational moniker, I would be a Reformed Baptist apologist. That's just basic common sense, right? Okay. So, I hear people use the anti-this, anti-that; I know they're really not interested in truth. They're sellin' somethin'; they're snake oil salesmen types of people. And you hear this all the time on Catholic Answers and things like that.

Later, White also mentioned at 29:45, "not only was the term anti-Catholic used, which is just bogus; it's just dishonest . . ." And again, at 41:20 to 41:50, attacking a statement by Marcus Grodi on his radio show, Deep in Scripture, he waxes indignant:

"Anti-Catholic preacher." May I just register my gross offense at this bigotry? That's what it is. It's Roman Catholic bigotry. It's offensive Roman Catholic bigotry, to make your communion the definer of all things, so if someone doesn't agree with your communion, "well, they're just anti-Catholic. They have nothing positive to say; they're just anti-Catholic." That's bigotry!

Now, knowing quite a bit about White and his vapid, illogical, and often non-factual polemics (frequently peppered with huge ethical double standards) as I do (15 years experience), I knew that this was a bald-faced lie, in terms of his own use of language. Let's look at the actual record, from his own blog:

There seems to be a strong element of anti-Reformed or anti-Calvinistic feeling among adherents to the KJV Only position, . . . ("New Age Bible Versions Refuted")

. . . common in anti-Reformed polemics . . . ("An Excellent Example of Sola Ecclesia: John 6 and Exegesis")

I was a little taken aback by the anti-Reformed polemic inherent in Lenski’s commentary. I am aware that many Lutherans continue to harbor that kind of anti-Calvinism (I suppose some Calvinists harbor anti-Lutheran feelings in turn, though I haven’t encountered it myself) . . . Lenski and other anti-Reformed writers . . . ("A Reformed Response to the Comments of R. C. H. Lenski on Romans 9")

The source The Berean Call utilized to attempt substantiation of the wild claims about a Hebrew original of Acts 13:48 that is meant to cast doubt upon the actual translation of the passage (all in the service of anti-Calvinism) turns out to be anti-Trinitarian as well. (12-19-04)

David Cloud's Anti-Calvinism Campaign . . .
My upcoming debates this year include the anti-Lordship, non-repentance theology of Bob Wilkin (1-26-05)

The Worst of Anti-Calvinism. . . . (3-13-05)

. . . the worst of the worst of anti-Reformed polemics. (7-26-05)

Hunt's new little anti-Calvinism book, . . . Hunt holds to the Wilkin anti-Lordship nonsense, . . . (8-17-05)

Paul Owen's stealth anti-Calvinism, . . . . . . the anti-Reformed polemics of pseudo-Calvinist Paul Owen of Montreat College. (10-5-05)

. . . Paul McCain's Lutheran anti-Calvinism. (12-1-05)

Today I discussed the recent explosion of anti-Calvinism on the part of various Lutherans like Paul McCain and Josh S., . . . (12-6-05)

. . . anonymous anti-Calvinist blogger "Charles" . . . (3-7-06)

. . . Dr. Davis' anti-Calvinism sermons . . . (3-21-06)

Continued my review of Dr. Davis' anti-Calvinism sermon today, . . . (4-6-06)

Ergun Caner's anti-Calvinism sermon a few weeks ago, . . . (6-6-06)

But please note, I am not blaming anti-Baptists for it. (9-29-06)

[yet on 7-11-07, White wrote: " what the Pope said in this recent document is perfectly consistent with Roman Catholic ecclesiology, and hence, to define his position in terms such as 'anti-Baptist' is absurd, just as it is absurd to call me an anti-Catholic."]

. . . it looks like there is only one template out there for anti-Calvinism sermons, . . . (10-12-06)

We continued with George Bryson and his anti-Calvinist materials, . . . (12-22-06)

In any case, Armstrong is so impressed with his own standing that he seems to think he can make up definitions for words as he goes along. It has been his practice for some time to arbitrarily define the phrase "anti-Catholic" so that he can use it of others but, due to a modern reading of Roman doctrine so as to allow for "separated brethren" to be called "Christians" while still anathematizing their theology, he can't be called an anti-Protestant. So, he arbitrarily defines the phrase so that since I deny Rome's gospel saves, I am an anti-Catholic, but since he can affirm, in some inconsistent and nebulous fashion, that I am a "Christian," then he is not an anti-Protestant. (8-3-07)
Ehrman's new anti-Christian book, . . . (3-2-09)
The far edge of anti-Reformed rhetoric can get a bit loopy at times. (7-10-09)
I find it ironic that Shea will use the "anti-Catholic" moniker frequently, yet, it is his attitude that is most accurately described as "anti-Protestant" or anti-Calvinist or however else you'd like to express it. (7-15-09)

. . . our examination of Norman Geisler's anti-Calvinism sermon. . . . (7-23-09)

We are trying to arrange *two* debate on Unbelievable, and one of them may be with an anti-Trinitarian I have wanted to engage for a long time. (1-16-10)

. . . yet another anti-Calvinistic screed . . . Ergun Caner's detestation of Reformed theology is well known. His utter lack of balance in his anti-Calvinism, . . . was difficult to understand . . . (6-29-10)

Anti-Calvinist Derangement Syndrome [title] (7-4-10)

White became aware of this paper and tried to weasel his way out of the pickle he has gotten himself into (in a post on his blog from 9-22-10), but quite unsuccessfully. He hung himself too thoroughly by his choice of put-down terms, to be able to extricate himself by verbal sleight-of-hand after the fact. He had thrown out a hundred boomerangs and they all came back to hit him upside his now-famous bald head. He may be able to take Tylenol or aspirin to get rid of the pain from those, but he can't undo the fact that he threw the boomerangs in the first place and that they came back to haunt him, based on dozens of instances of his past words.

See also the related past papers:

The Strange Saga of James White's On-Again, Off-Again Use of the Pejorative Terms "Romanism" and "Romanist"
James White's Continued Idiotic Opposition to Catholic Use of the Term Anti-Catholic



ecclesiaprimus said...

that's just him...and, we cannot expect otherwise. That's why any time the situation calls for it, he must be unmasked. Period.

Dave Armstrong said...

I could hardly resist dealing with such a breathtaking instance of rank hypocrisy.

His followers couldn't care less, though. They're blind to all this, and nothing is ever done about it.

David Waltz said...

Hi Dave,

Good post; yet another prime example of James White's penchant for 'double-standards'. What is really sad is his attempted defense. If it had been you who had employed such a blatant 'double-standard', you can bet that a host of Reformed epologists would be filling the cybersphere with a host of derogatory posts.

I suspect that pretty much everyone is guilty of some form of 'double-standard' (DS), including yours truly, but I sincerely try to make the needed changes to correct any such instances when I become aware of them; however, there are a number of Reformed folk I have dealt with who refuse to acknowledge (let alone correct) even the most blatant and overt use/abuse of DS.

Grace and peace,


Lothair Of Lorraine said...


You have smoked James White here. But, rest assured, he'll be calling you a deceived liar and demanding a public apology.

Lothair Of Lorraine said...

By the way, I see you included a huge picture of James White's big head. Was that just a coincidence?

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Couldn't you have made the picture bigger?