My Debate with James White - 12.12.13
Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 3:57PM NOTRadio
THE DEBATE SUMMARY
By Christian J. Pinto
Well, the debate between myself and James White took place last night on the Fighting for the Faith radio program with Chris Rosebrough. Planned months in advance, and preceded by controversy every step of the way (as everyone knows who has kept up with this issue), it all came down to just 90 minutes where we discussed Sinaiticus, Simonides, Tischendorf … and Jesuits. For the record, I wish to say that Mr. Rosebrough was, overall, very considerate and handled the debate fairly.
In the immediate aftermath, it is interesting that most of White’s followers have been very reluctant to claim “victory” on his behalf – something they are known for doing. While supportive of his effort, they seem to have generally cooled their typical insults against us. Well, most of them anyway. But we discovered the following Twitter exchange where Jim De Arras tweeted James White:
Jim De Arras@jmdearras2h: “I think you did yourself a disservice arguing with that moron. He will declare victory and gain followers.”
It is important to acknowledge that Dr. White wrote back:
JamesWhite@DrOakley16892h: “Brethren, brother Pinto is no more of a moron than I am a Jesuit. Let’s hold ourselves to a proper standard, shall we?”
I am certainly glad to see Dr. White make the effort to compel his supporters towards greater civility, but I can honestly say that after dealing with the Critical Text proponents for the past six months, they can be every bit as fanatical and unreasonable as any extremist on the Bible version issue. Yet the above tweeter was concerned that our side would “declare victory and gain followers.” Why? Most likely because he realized that Dr. White simply had no salient arguments against the central issue, which was whether or not Constantine Simonides was telling the truth when he claimed to have authored Codex Sinaiticus in 1840.
The Simonides controversy between Dr. White and myself has been followed for months on the CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) discussion board. After the debate, one of its senior members, Steven Avery wrote:
“… the major attempt of White, his specific claim, was flawed, failed and flunked.”
With all due respect to Dr. White, we could not agree more.
Dr. White’s arguments (or lack thereof) only confirmed the declaration of James Farrer in 1907 that the matter had never been settled and must continue to be considered an “interesting but unsolved mystery of literature.” This has been my position all along. During the debate, White continued to argue that Simonides and his uncle could not have collated manuscripts in the time allowed and mired himself down in speculations which he has no way of proving. He refused to recognize that attempting to figure out how long it might take these men (whose entire lives revolved around manuscripts) is something he simply cannot know.
White also refused to acknowledge that other scholars (like James Farrer) have completely dismissed this view, which had been argued in the 19th century. Even Simonides’s opponents disagreed because they insisted he had the ability to create hundreds (and possibly thousands) of forgeries that would have taken a much longer period of time and involved a far more complicated knowledge of history. This is why they called him a “brilliant” forger.
At the end of it all, White’s overwhelming tendency to confuse historic facts with the opinions of the filmmaker proved to be the demise of his ambition, which was to remove the question mark placed upon the controversy in 1907.
Yet his opposition was not just concerning Codex Sinaiticus, but against my entire film, Tares Among the Wheat. And why? Because it also documents the history of the Oxford Movement which was the aggressive effort of Rome to reclaim England for the Pope. The efforts of Rome and her Counter Reformation precede the 19th century for hundreds of years, and lead right up to the events that happened all the way through the work of the Revision Committee of 1881. The story of Simonides and Tischendorf unfolds during an era that was called “The Age of Jesuitism” by one of the leading historians at the time. But White wants to hear nothing about this, because it does not agree with the world as he had imagined before he saw the film.
At one point, he even threw John Calvin under the bus when a quote from the renowned Reformer disagreed with him. This is remarkable considering that White calls himself a Calvinist. Elsewhere, he dismissed the history of J.A. Wylie as mere “opinion.” The historic oracles of the 19th century were rejected in favor of White’s revisionist ideas of Church history. It only serves to show how incredibly biased he was towards the subject matter and the powerful influence that Critical Text theories can have on those who espouse the tenets thereof.
As I have said many times on our radio program, the neo-Reformers of America today are but a shadow of the original Reformation. The modern Reformed movement has been subverted by historically Romish teachings about both the Bible and history.
Please understand that the above statement does not mean I think James White is a “Jesuit.” I do not hold to that view, and I continue to view him as a brother in the Lord. He was very polite prior to the debate when we briefly spoke on the phone, and I believe he treated the subject as an important issue, which was my primary concern because of comments he had made beforehand. Despite whatever was said months ago (words that no doubt gave the impression that he would spend his time in sarcasm rather than sober discussion) he was, as it seemed to me, committed to making the best argument he could. Unfortunately for his position, his best argument did little to close the case file of Codex Sinaiticus, or what may very well be Codex Simonides.
All in all, the real concern for both sides is the defense of the Holy Scriptures. It should be noted by us all that when the original Reformers began publishing Bibles across Europe, the continent was transformed by the power of the Word of God. It was called “the blessed Reformation,” and that’s how it was viewed prior to the 20th century. Yet under the leadership of modern textual scholars who have embraced ecumenical apostates like Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, and the Jesuit Carlo Martini – our nation has gone steadily downhill, and society has been brought to the point where they no longer believe the Bible has any true authority.
Please understand that we do not claim “victory” in the aftermath of this debate. We just don’t see the issues that way. We believe this is about defending the faith that was once delivered unto the saints, and proving all things, to be certain the Church is not deceived concerning a very important part of the Bible’s history. To God be the glory, and in Christ alone is our victory.
It is our intention to do follow up discussions on more of the details and answer some of the specifics that were raised during the debate with Dr. White. Our hope is that the experience will be edifying for the Church and those who have questions about the important issues discussed. We extend our appreciation both to Dr. White and Mr. Rosebrough for recognizing the importance of the issue enough to act upon it.
Finally, I want to say thank you to all of you who have supported myself and our ministry through this challenging time. We give thanks to God for your prayers, your love, and your fellowship in Christ.
CJP
Reader Comments (14)
That was a fantastic follow-up to the debate Chris. I certainly have always appreciated the way you approach a subject with humility yet with your homework done and a sure and studied knowledge of the issues you discuss. Dr. White is a professional debater and sounded very pugnacious and condescending throughout the debate. In the realm of debating unbelievers, this is a skill he has obviously honed, but it only made him appear arrogant in last night's debate with you - when it was clearly your first professional debate (and you handled yourself honorably and respectfully). That is not to mention that he clearly didn't persuade or settle the debate in his favor with his "not possible" responses.
BTW - I own Tares Among the Wheat and have watched A Lamp In The Dark at least 3 times with my family -- and not once has one of us complained about the 3 hours. If anything, we were disappointed it ended too soon. Additionally, we've watched every one of your documentaries (with the exception of watching in its entirety the one on Kinsey because I just couldn't stomach watching more than 1/2 of it). Secret Mysteries of America series has got to be the most fascinating documentaries I have ever seen (I've watched them numerous times as well). Who needs Hollywood? You provide the only moving pictures worthy of my time - 3 hours or not! May God bless you as you continue to minister to the flock and bring us many more years of research into historical and modern issues as well as making excellent documentaries.
We have a review of the debate on our website. http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/chris-pinto-vs-james-white/ Of course, this review was also tweeted to White who replied "please ignore that individual, he is beneath contempt and unworthy of responding to".
James Avery has also contributed some valuable insights and has addressed some other issues that we have not tackled.
To briefly summarize our review, Whites "prima facie" case boiled down to:
*certain renderings in the Sinaiticus which were "utterly unknown" at the time Simonides made his claim which is an irrelevant argument,
*length of Pinto's documentary when White himself has debates that lasted just as long (his debate with Yusuf Ismail was 2 hours 59 minutes, 2 minutes longer than *Tares*)
*the amount of time needed for collations, again irrelevant considering that James did not DISPROVE that Simonides actually had collated manuscripts, 2 of which were clearly already collated (Moscow and Alexandrinus). Yet White dismisses the Moscow and Alexandrinus because of certain text types. But that then begs the question: did Simonides openly challenge Tischendorf having thus ZERO COLLATED MANUSCRIPTS to back up his claim? Considering that Simonides DID produce the Shepherd of Hermas which was the exactly the same as the one included in Tishcendorf's Sinaiticus, it is obvious that Simonides had other manuscripts collated. The issue raised about the Shepherd of Hermas argument was ignored by White.
Furthermore, how long did it take Erasmus to collate his manuscripts before translating them into Latin AND Greek from 4 different languages?
*Pintos lack of research. Ironically, White had criticized Dave Hunt for only having 6 months to study the Reformers before opining about their doctrines. According to White, 6 months was not enough time for Hunt to have had sufficient knowledge to debate about Reformed Doctrine. And yet James White and his followers conclude that the few short months that White has spent on the Simonides issue was sufficient to refute the Tares documentary?
*Simonides age. White made an issue about Simonides age being a contributing factor to the IMpossibility of his claimed achievements. However, that itself is sheer speculation. Would White criticize Calvinist theologians like Jon Edwards who went to Yale at age 13? This objection by White is mere opinion unsupported by any facts and refuted by the plethora of historical evidence regarding the abilities of Simonides by those who knew him personally.
*Another sort of hypocritical oversight if you will on White's part is many of his followers have criticized Ergun Caner for failing to answer James White's accusations. White has even called it "Caner's Jihad Against Christianity". White also has produced articles claiming that Peter Ruckman would not debate him (although Ruckman has the last letter that White did not post on his website about terms White would not agree to). So hear we have at least 2 instances where White has claimed victory over a "no show" for debates. Why doesn't he and his followers apply that same standard to Tischendorf's failure to show up to debate Simonides?
*Jesuit behind every bush. White seems to think that "conspiracy" about the Jesuits is a modern phenomena. White even stated such in an article on his website "The Mindset of a Conspiracy Theorist". Apparently, White is unfamiliar with an enormous host of Protestant theologians including Charles Spurgeon, who also believed that Jesuits were behind the tampering of the Bible. In "Sermon 68-A Warniing to all Churches" Spurgeon wrote, "“With those who treat the Bible as waste paper, and regard the death of Christ as no substitution, we have no desire for fellowship. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and , since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind’s eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task….. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite. Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth reading. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this “modern thought”
"They keep back a portion of the gospel … having studied in the devil’s new Jesuitical college.”
Ironically, White often punts to his debates with Roman Catholics as evidence that he opposes their doctrine, but when it suits him in a debate falls short of labeling the treacherous history of the Catholic church as anything but pure evil and a conspiracy against Protestants and Baptists. White's own sister, Patty Bonds, a recently converted Roman Catholic, accused White of threatening her when she told him about their father molesting her. http://abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com/2009/04/out-of-darkness-cross-i-carry.html What was White and his supporters explanation? That the Catholic Church is using Patty as a weapon against James White because of his debates with Catholics (for example, http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/04/into-darkness.html) That sounds an awful lot like a CONSPIRACY THEORY. Not to mention the repugnant treatment of denouncing a rape victim merely because she's Catholic. In Whites dismall short response about his sister's conversion, he referred to her as "Mrs Bonds", not even calling his own sister by her first name. http://vintage.aomin.org/Luke1251.html
Overall, Pinto did a great job at defending the ACTUAL ISSUE surrounding the documentary, in which White attempted to turn the debate into a different matter. For not having any "official" formal debate experience, I think Pinto handled himself quite well. And this issue is certainly not over.
Heard the debate - in just 2 words Chris - WELL DONE
A lot of James White supporters took to the comments and pretty much acted the same way he did during the debate. They try to belittle the knowledge and ability to think of others who disagree with their point of view. It was very easy to tell they were a very angry bunch afterwards. Some even come out calling the TR/KJVO demonic in origin. Very interesting indeed seeing the reactions of people on both sides, let's just say...one side was more kind than the other.
Hi saints. I have seen Chris's two films and thoroughly enjoyed them. Lots of very good information. I know James White gets upset about the Jesuit counter Reformation card, but it is true nonetheless. There is Undeniable Proof the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, etc. are the new "Vatican Versions". The Vatican has made a formal agreement with the United Bible Societies to create an "inter confessional" text to create a unity with "the separated brethren". Don't believe it? See the documentation from right out of their own Nestle-Aland critical textbook, the UBS homepage and the Vatican's own site here
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
God bless.
Chris you have been very gracious towards James White and yet he has taken everything you have to say as using it against. In my opinion you have done enough and don't need to prove anything to Dr. James White anymore. Not until he grows up and stops using his childish antics to berate you. If you ever get a chance google his name and you will notice that you are not the first he has used his childish leftist tactics on. Thank you so much for all you are doing. GOD bless my friend.
What everybody noticed in the debate was what White looks like when he is contrasted with an adult. And a nice adult at that, which is what Chris Pinto obviously is. Will Kinney has commented above, and we saw the same thing in his more informal debate with White on White's Dividing Line. In fact White was so worked up in that exchange he wouldn't allow Kinney to speak. White's face was also beet red for most of the exchange, like he'd just come up from the infernal regions. As for fallacious rhetoric, White seems to think he's allowed to use it on the manuscripts issues. But getting back to White's attitude, it's disappointing hearing actual nastiness coming from him. But on this subject this is a person who actually stated on his Dividing Line, after a trip to England, that he had seen his beloved Sinaiticus in a glass case, and then when he looked further and saw a first edition of the Authorized Version, 1611, in the *same room* as his Sinaiticus it made him *feel ill.* He actually stated this, that just seeing a first edition of the AV1611 made him feel ill.
Why dont you take on the Catholics in a manner similar to what Paul, Luther, Calvin or even James White does ie head-on instead of hiding behind conspiracy theories. Why dont you debate Catholics in public showing them from Scripture and History that they are presenting a false gospel. You are obviously the best man for the job judging from your own critique of the debate. I watched your film and then heard the debate and the best thing for you to do is to stay away from any serious debate on these subjects because you will embarass the body of Christ as is the habit of those who follow your means of argumentation - all speculation, no real scholarship,and then delve into conspiracy theories and "secret societies". Right from Genesis 3 Satan did his work in public. Christ who crushed him did it in public using truth not conspiracy theories. How people want to defend truth using speculations and superstition as opposed to putting in the hard hours in learning is beyond me but I suppose that is where we are theologically today. We cover up our embarssing lack of real knowledge with self acclaimed "insight". I suppose its easier and more "tickling" than learning the original languages and then studying the validity of these claims from the manuscript traditions we have. Doesn't make for enticing and sensationalistic documentaries. Italian ex-catholic, ex-KJV only, ex-cosnpirationalist from south africa. (Gian Monzeglio)
Dear Gian,
If you watch my films, you will see that we most certainly do tackle the doctrinal and theological issues with Rome. There is no question about that. But it seems you have been conditioned by the misleading analysis of Dr. White and others like him. Nevertheless, in the Scriptures we are not only admonished by doctrinal arguments, but also with warnings against wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt. 7:15), against deceivers who creep into the churches secretly (Jude 1:4), and against a "conspiracy of prophets" (Ezekiel 22:25) who work to destroy the souls of men. The apostle Paul told us that he spent three years warning the Ephesians about the "grievous wolves" that would enter in among them (Acts 20:29-31). He said that he "ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears." Furthermore, such warnings have been handed down by our Bible believing Christian forefathers. It is only in modern times that teachers attempt to diminish such warnings, and give the church the false impression that there is no deliberate scheme to undermine the Gospel. This compels God's people to let down their guard, and makes them more susceptible to deception. We believe in the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), which includes the warnings of Scripture. CJP
I myself was unfamiliar with James White up until a few months ago. I am certainly no expert in this debated issue so my desire has been to learn. Therefore I have appreciated all the informative and well-documented material Chris Pinto has taken the time to share with his listeners about this much disputed topic. I just finished listening to the debate and, truthfully, it was painful to listen to. James White was shrill, angry and antagonistic whereas Chris Pinto was gracious. I just don't understand how a believer can treat a fellow believer that way. Actually, it would be wrong to treat an unbelieving person in a debate that way as well. As we all know, there are so many disagreements on so many issues among believers today and being unloving and bitter in attacks towards those who disagree with you has become commonplace. It is very sad to me and it just shouldn't be that way. I don't care how much of an expert, how informed and how knowledgeable James White is. I just found it simply difficult to listen to anything he said because of his condescending and unkind tone. It is unbelievable to me that many of his supporters cannot or will not see it. Also, maybe this subject is just over my head, but I found him to be unconvincing whereas if nothing else Chris Pinto's presentation should have urged those who disagree with him to take a closer look at his arguments.
Chris, I think you did an excellent job in the debate. You presented your case very well. The documented evidence you presented in the debate (and have presented in your documentaries, etc.) are appreciated and should be considered by anyone who wants to take a honest look at this subject.
Agreed, Anna. Based on sound bites Chris has played of him, Dr. White seems very proud of being a debater...
I am disappointed in this ministry that my prior comment was not posted here. It was pointed, I do not think offensive. Cherry picking. I suppose you are confirming my suspicion. Enjoy unrelenting praise, though not representative of the whole.
Shalom!
Idahodoc,
We do not know what you mean. Where is your other comment? NOTR
Idahodoc, sometimes the comments don't make it to the admins. It's happened to me before, and it appears recently. Just technical issues, you could try posting again.
My only comment is that James White is afraid to "prove all things" as of what the scripture tells us and maybe he's lacking discernment also.
I re-visited your wonderful debate with James white, you won. that is it. you did wonderful job.
we don't need another evidence for scripture, we have it already, we had it already, it is here with us already. we don't need any other argument by these money moguls filthy lucre, undiscerning, what ever the enemy is doing is to cast more confusion on SCRIPTURE, and these so-called scholar are helping him, I denounce tischendrof, Westcott-hort and the Vatican, I have one verse for them it is in Matthew
[Mat 17:18 KJV] And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
well done brother Chris, I sent e-mail to radio moody to get you on their show, I will send them again another e-mail. be bold you have the truth.
A. ZORA