Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
A Note to David Pacitti
01/05/2005 - James WhiteDavid Pacitti wrote to me (publicly, on DA's blog):
What is amazing to me is how James White and his followers actually think that he is write about anything. I have read James White work and have compared it to yours and others such as Steve Ray and Bob Sungenis and White's work does not stand up to the evidence. White is the kind of person who would loose a tug-of-war match but still claim that he won! Tim Enloe gave a good example of this yesterday about his comment on the e-mail that he sent to White.Hello David, I don't think we have met. :-)
It is hard to respond to such statements, since you do not give any specifics. Tim Enloe sent me a scathing, barely rational e-mail that he then demanded I never reproduce, and now he's talking about it publicly (if it happens again, I will publish it). I think if you were to read his actual e-mail, and my response, you might have a different view. But that aside, could you be specific? For example, could you tell me where, in dealing with Matthew 16:18-19, Isaiah 22:20-22, etc., or any of the key passages on the Papacy, what I have written did not "stand up to the evidence"? Have you listened to the debates I have done on this subject? The 7.5 hour debate with Gerry Matatics from 1993 in Denver? The 3+ hour debate with Father Mitch Pacwa on Long Island? I'd think if what I have said and presented could not "stand up to the evidence," those two men would have the capacity to prove it, yes?
It is hard for me being a Catholic Christian to remain charitable in the face of blatant sophistry that James White and the others perform. It is funny to me how he believes his argument on the single-key in Isiah crushes Matt 16, but if you tell a lie over and over, some people will believe you.Where have I said that pointing out there there is a single key of David, which Jesus possesses in Revelation 3:7, "crushes" Matthew 16? I said that if one is going to seriously assert that Isaiah 22 is "fulfilled" in Matthew 16, so that Isaiah 22 provides you with the concept of "succession," shouldn't one explain why there is a difference between the singular key of David and the keys of the kingdom? Why is it a "lie" to ask for serious exegesis of this text? And could you, David, provide me with any ECF who argued as you do on the passage? I'd be interested. :-)
Mr. White, I know that you visit these blogs and read these. I mean you no disrespect and I love you as a Christian brother (even though you do not regard me as a Christian), but you have done nothing to challange my beliefs of being a Catholic. You are always in my prayers and I pray that you will open your eyes to the truth.I am forced to wonder, David, what you have read of my works? Have you looked at The God Who Justifies? Which debates have you listened to? I would be very interested in your exegesis of Romans 4:6-8, since Mr. Armstrong does not seem to wish to offer his own? Could you explain to me how it is that all who are justified in Romans 8:30 are likewise glorified, when your theology says you can be justified but not remain in a state of grace and hence be lost and never glorified? When you say you have never been challenged, I am forced to conclude that you have answers, therefore, for all the challenges that others have failed to meet. Is this what you are claiming? I'd be really interested in knowing if this is the case.