Talk:James White (theologian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Calvinism / Baptist (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Baptist work group.
 

6 major sins of calvinism/biblocality[edit]

If this section shows up again, please remove it, it is being posted by some guy who has a personal vendetta against Dr. White and has been spamming his attacks all over the place. Regardless, it isn't fit for a wikipage.

"Consultant to the NASB"? Same guy?[edit]

It was news to me that Mr. White was a "critical consultant" to the NASB through the Lockman foundation.

"Others served as consultants who reviewed the translation committee's work and made recommendations for improvements. These consultants were chosen from all sections of the United States.

http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php

Their website certainly lists a "Dr. James White" in their list of "critical consultants to the NASB update" (along with three other "doctors") but do we know for sure that this is the same "James R. White" who runs Alpha & Omega Ministeries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.24.130 (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same James R. White. "Critical Consultant, New American Standard Bible Update (1995)" --Ari (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Professorship[edit]

Does he still teach at Golden Gate Theological Seminary? Their faculty page doesn't list any "James White" as of today (March 5, 2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.76.128 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He's currently listed on the adjunct page. Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


He's no longer listed on either page. Updates anyone? 76.94.235.103 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

What ever happened to the photo of White that used to be on the page? Eugeneacurry (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Education[edit]

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)
I disagree. If it wasn't for his opponents making a big deal about it, his Ph.D plays little or no part of his notability. His notability is based on his body of work: his books, debates, and seminary teaching. If you want to argue he should not use the term "Ph.D" (though I know of no rule that restricts its use to those from accredited institutions), that's one thing; but to use it as an ad homimem argument as many of his opponents do (e.g., "he's not a real doctor so we can ignore everything he says") is not fitting for those who say they follow the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
I also find it interesting that many of the same people complaining most about White's PhD (the details of which he has always made clear) have no problem at all with Ergun Caner's false history (the details of which he has done everything possible to obscure). Fool4jesus (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

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)

Criticism[edit]

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)

Great Advertisement[edit]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.201.150 (talkcontribs)

Patty Bonds[edit]

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)

The citation of Patty Bonds is completely irrelevant to who White is. The statement is not even very NPOV; it sounds like something written by a Roman Catholic critic of White. It needs to be removed. 71.170.218.38 03:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Maestroh

I agree. If the Bonds material was shown to have a substantive effect on White's ministry or beliefs that would be one thing. But as it stands the Bonds material simply doesn't seem germane. Eugeneacurry 02:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Debates?[edit]

Are the debates notable? Academics/KJM advocates debate all the time, but there is no need to list each one. We66er (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


Portals placed[edit]

Portals place. Article needs info box, picture and some cleanup. Enfermero (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Children?[edit]

The current text reads

"He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to his wife Kelli for more than twenty-six years, and has two children, Joshua and Summer."

The fact that he is an elder at his church has already been stated, and I might suggest that the rest of this sentence is appropriate for an About the Author section but not a Wikipedia article. Maybe this is a matter of personal preference, but I think if I were in his shoes I wouldn't want my children listed here.

Mikedelong (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

White makes reference to his family (complete with photos and names) on aomin.org. I doubt that he would object to their names appearing here. Eugene (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

bringyou.to[edit]

Considered by many an anti-catholic, some attention has been given to the public conversion of White's sister Patty Patrick Bonds to the Roman Catholic Church and his decision to the subsequent estrangement from her.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/s2.htm Patty Patrick Bonds http://www.aomin.org/Luke1251.html

This edit along with the following sources keeps being entered. There's problems with the main source bringyou.to. It's self published and from a non notable source. Self-published is acceptable when produced by an established major published expert on the topic. None of this qualifies. Personal information such as this is required to be cited by the strongest possible source. The sources don't rise to the level of verifiability for a BLP, nor is this topic. Basileias (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Patty Bonds is as relevant to an article on White as Newt Gingrich's sister would be if she was not know independently in her own right. Namely, simply a smear tactic. Further, calling White an "anti-Catholic" is exactly on par with calling Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, or Robert Sungenis "anti-Protestants." Strangely, such appellations do not appear in the articles for those gentlemen. Fool4jesus (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal blog source[edit]

I don't see how a personal blog that doesn't even mention the subject's name in full is an acceptable source for a BLP article. diff It seems to be a response to Mr. White from his sister I assume? So it's a primary source as well. Can Farsight001 please tell me why this is an exception for type of sources required by BLP policy? Ultra Venia (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It's an acceptable source for what the person running the blog (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is his sister) believes. In other words we can use this to report "his sister says he has shunned her", but we can't use it to say "he has shunned her".Farsight001 (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't even state his name, and it's also primary. I'm just not comfortable with this, even as her interpretation of his actions. Were he to have his own blog Alpha & Omega mention it in a post, or in a second party publication of some sort (which is what we are supposed to use to source a BLP) it would be acceptable. Her feelings on a matter of sibling issues aren't relevant unless he mentions them, and then we have his words, or for some reason Otherwise, any disaffected relative with an angry blog would be considered RS: "Jennifer Famousperson's cousin thinks she's getting too snobby since she got famous." (source:cousin's blog). This is not acceptable. If it's that notable of a situation, it will be reflected in second-party sources. You need one. Ultra Venia (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
From WP:SPS: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Without a better source, it needs to go. Ultra Venia (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP Claim[edit]

I have twice now removed the statement that the school that James White attended was unacreddited. I did so because there is no source associated with the claim, and this is a BLP article. One commenter stated that since it is not directly about James White, it doesn't fall under BLP. I pointed out that if the statement is not intended to make a statement in reference to White, it doesn't belong here. Another person pointed out that the claim is important, which if it is it needs to be sourced in a BLP Article.

As explained already once, the statement is about the school, not about James White. Hence it is not a blp issue. That it is not intended to make a statement about White is not relevant. It is pertinent and important information about the school. You are whitewashing this article to remove information that ultimately makes James White look bad. Do not think for a second you are fooling anyone. I will also point out that contrary to your claim that the statement is unsourced, YOUR edits removed the citation for it. Please don't lie like that.Farsight001 (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I did not remove a SINGLE citation, all I did was format them. If I did remove it, it was a mistake, but as it was originally phrased there was no citation after "an unaccredited school." If you'll look, someone provided a citation, and I not only did not remove it, but reformatted it correctly. Furthermore "You are whitewashing this article to remove information that ultimately makes James White look bad." This sentence SHOWS exactly why it needs to have a source. You yourself are noting that the comment does relate to and inform the reader about something regarding James White, and his credentials. This is the very essence why BLP articles need sources. Either way, the claim has been sourced, so this RFC is no longer necessary. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The edit request shows clearly the presence of a citation that YOU removed, after claiming multiple times that it did not exist. And you expect me to believe you didn't know about it?
Furthermore, no, that does not show why it needs to have a source. That it makes James White look bad is incidental. It is pertinent information that is not a blp violation, end of story. That he went to the school is information about him that, according to BLP, absolutely needs a source. That the school is unaccredited is information about the school that should have a source (as everything should), but is not a blp issue.Farsight001 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Look again. What I removed was a statement that came AFTER a citation, which itself did not have a citation. There is no reference for the statement "an unaccredited distance-learning school." in the edit prior to my first interaction with this article. Get your facts straight.

Before

White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a presuppositional apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He received a BA from Grand Canyon College, an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary, and a ThM, a ThD and a DMin from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Seminary),[1] an unaccredited distance-learning school.

After

White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a presuppositional apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He received a BA from Grand Canyon College, an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary, and a ThM, a ThD and a DMin from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Seminary),[2].

  1. ^ "A Brief History of CES". Columbia Evangelical Seminary. Retrieved February 6, 2012. 
  2. ^ "A Brief History of CES". Columbia Evangelical Seminary. Retrieved February 6, 2012. 

ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If the issue is resolved, please close the RfC and continue your personal dispute elsewhere. In the future, please try to resolve disputes through discussion before an RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the Request for comment process) --JFH (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can see the edit history for themselves, Reformed. I don't know who you think you're going to fool.Farsight001 (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to point to where I removed a citation.ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Perhaps the page 'Accreditation' on the relevant institution's website, which says "Columbia Evangelical Seminary is not Accredited", is a relevant source.
With the inclusion of this citation, I think it would be reasonable to include the fact that the institution is not accredited.
In my opinion the BLP rules do apply, because the status of the school has bearing on the status of the BLP subject's claimed degrees, so in that sense the information is 'about a living person'.
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see you've already done exactly that. If this issue is resolved then please remove the RfC banner, to take it off the RfC list and prevent editors being automatically asked to comment. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - In all the BLP and other articles I have edited, it is generally not something to highlight, through proxy (James White article), that an educational institution is unaccredited, or not. I am not saying not too, but I do not see a reason here. A lot of religious institutions are not accredited. Pulling from the columbiaseminary.org website would be fine for an article on the Columbia Seminary. Here is my reasoning, (verifiability):

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities..."

I could, be concerned about a coatrack forming with these types of insertions. Basileias (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)