Talk:James White (theologian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism Portal James White (theologian) falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Education

Come on, give it a rest already. There is no need to keep putting vitriol on the page about Columbia Evangelical Seminary. Such references "might" be warrented on the seminary's page but not on the page of an alumni. Eugeneacurry

Dear Eugeneacurry,

The controversy surrounding James White's claim to be a Ph.D is an important part of what makes him "notable". Whether it's true that Columbia Seminary is a degree-mill or not, the controversy needs to be noted. Any relevant attacks on Mr. White's credentials should be discussed, and any relevant rejoinders should also be covered. CaliforniaKid 06:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Uh... right. The fact that he is the author of a dozen or so books, has a Masters from Fuller and ::has debated every major Roman Catholic apologist and recently Muslim apologists as well is not notable? Dr. White doesn't hide the fact that he got a degree from Columbia Seminary, but it seems that for some this is more an issue than the content of his work. As to the larger question as to if Dr. James White's is 'notable', one need only look at the list of books availble. - M Burke, 12:51, 29 Sept 2006

Uh... being a debator doesn't make one notable. That's great how to call him a "dr", but a list of books means nothing. Any figures on sales or academic support. You will be blocked if you keep removing it. Arbusto 02:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please. White easily passes the google test. He has written articles in a number of well-known Christian publications and written books published by respectable Christian publishing houses. Besides, he is respected enough to repeatedly be a debate partner for other people who are indisputably notable. If he's not notable, I'll give you a big list of other Christian authors who should also be deleted. --Flex 14:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please. James White is a common name and of course it'll have a high google count. Look at how James White's are on wikipedia. Arbusto 23:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Google for "James R. White" (in quotes) and nearly all of the links will be this guy. --Flex 11:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

James White has debated Barry Lynn, the President of Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State, John Dominic Crossan, arguably the most well known critic of the New Testament of this generation, and he is slated to debate John Shellby Spong, a man that was once one of the most notable Bishops in the Anglican Communion in the Western world. Additionally, at least a few of White's books (The Roman Catholic Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, and the King James Only Controversy)are widely read and have been acclamed by highly notable Biblical scholars. Even if one feels that White's doctorate is bogus that still isn't enough to deny his notability. Eugeneacurry 17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is more convincing of notablity now. Arbusto 23:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The list of what I present as published biblical and patristic counterexamples to White's published claim (about the absence in the Bible or early Church of the belief in Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix) are hardly more a synthesis than the list of White's publications. It's beyond difficult to see how White or his defenders can spin these any other way. StIrenaeusOfLyons 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

First, it is irrelevant if White's defenders or opponents spin things one way or another. The Wikipedia does not contain unpublished rebuttals per WP:OR. The church fathers were certainly not rebutting White. Ergo, you are synthesizing a rebuttal. You have two choices: Find a reliable source to back up your argument or drop it. The burden of citation is on you.

Second, cooperation is a long way from coredemption. Joseph also cooperated in a lesser degree by helping provide for and raise the child, but he is not termed co-redeemer. I do not say this because I want to pick a theological fight here (I most certainly do not), but only to say that the connection between at least some of your "choice fruits" (which is indubitably inappropriate language for a work of this nature) is not nearly as obvious as you imply. --Flex (talk|contribs) 04:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Flex, a few points. (1) If "choice fruits" is inappropriate, I would not have been too disappointed had you merely amended it (I thought it was a good metaphor with "cornucopia") instead of ripping out the entire criticism yet again. (2) You've ignored my earlier comments that the texts from the early centuries of the Church by its orthodox leaders or a respected writer such as Tertullian (who was considered unorthodox late in his life) are material facts, and appending them serially constitutes hardly more of a synthesis than a serial list of White's publications. (3) As for your comment that "cooperation is a long way from coredemption," I disagree (You may not wish to pick a theological fight; neither do I, so let's call it a discussion in keeping with this page.). St. Irenaeus of Lyons' reference to "economy" is often understood to mean the "economy of salvation." The passage from St. Chrysippus of Jerusalem is striking in connecting Mary to the redemption. And St. Ambrose of Milan also leaves no doubt in writing that Mary "conceived the redemption of all." (4) You wrote that Joseph is "not termed co-redeemer." While St. Joseph is not officially given this title, I think it fits well, however unofficial it may be. You could research the difference between the objective and subjective redemption (see writings, for example, by Fr. William Most) for clarification. (5) It is RIDICULOUS to expect one to find many previously published criticisms of someone such as James R. White. Even this discussion page disputes whether White rises to a sufficient level of notability. Any book to be written about him is indeed written for a limited audience. Your attitude is a public relations coup for White: his book and debate ticket sales should rise as a result of Wikipedia exposure, yet you tolerate no criticism of him. Even when he criticises a non-existent Pope Sixtus VI (sixth) (a criticism that cannot be attributed to a mere typographic error (Sixtus the IV (fourth) was pope in a different span than the time White identified for Sixtus - ahem - VI's failure to resolve the issue of the Immaculate Conception)), my declaration of that was expurgated as "original research." (6) I'm restoring my most recent criticism, though removing "choice fruits." Please do not excise it. The sources are all reliable. They are all published. They do not constitute a synthesis. They do not constitute original research. If you remove them, I will ask the powers that be to suspend your privileges. StIrenaeusOfLyons 05:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your text is original research because you are supplying quotations and unsourced interpretations of them. Moreover, even if you supplied some reliable source(s) that supported your interpretations (which I don't think would be hard to find), the material would still be out of place here because you would be taking quotations and synthesizing the conclusion (implicitly or explicitly): "Therefore, White is wrong." You must "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say" (WP:OR, emphasis in original). Remember, the criterion for inclusion here is "verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). If you still disagree, we can ask for an independent third opinion. Regarding the meaning of the quotations, I'll reiterate: I am not interested in engaging in a theological discussion here. That is not the point of this page or the Wikipedia. Also, you should be aware of WP:3RR, which may get you blocked if you continue inserting that text without reaching consensus here. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

StIrenaeusofLyons has opened a mediation page on this matter. Interested parties ought to give there input where appropriate. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-04_Criticism_section_of_James_R._White_article Eugeneacurry 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will close this case. --Ideogram 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing. --Ideogram 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Advertisement

What great fluff this page is. JohnFoxe should be pleased Good sales pitch. Where are all of the listings of Ruckman'a books!? Ho ho ho. Seriously lame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.201.150 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Patty Bonds

It seems that the material on Patty Bonds is a little out of place in this article. What do others think? Eugeneacurry 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit, but on the other hand, her conversion was more public than most. I neutralized the info about her. See if you think it is less objectionable/more keepable now. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)