My letter concerning Roman-Catholicism was mailed out to several individuals, including another version concerning Eastern Orthodoxy (addressed to Peter Gillquist, author of Becoming Orthodox). I received many responses, one of which was from James White, Protestant apologist of Alpha and Omega Ministries. Mr. White's letters were very informative and motivated me to carefully study the issues involved. Below is the first response from Mr. White. Links to further letters (in order) appear after the letter. The letters are reproduced as received except for the restatements of my words, which are printed here in the same color as this introduction. Also, I have taken the liberty of updating Mr. White's link to his website and of linking other online resources that are mentioned. The content of the letters, however, remains unchanged.

Dear William:

Thank you for your letter of December 4th, in which you wrote to both Scott Hahn as well as Peter Gillquist. Since you are in the "book reading mode," I hope you'll take the time to add two more to your list: The Roman Catholic Controversy and Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible. The first is from Bethany House Publishers, the second from Soli Deo Gloria Publications. Both are available from our ministry, and are listed on our web page, http://www.aomin.org.

If I might make a few comments on your letter.

1. There is definitely a concept of Apostolic succession being promoted which includes the authority of the Bishop.

This is Ignatius' view, but prior to it, as seen in Clement and the Didache, is the more primitive, and I would say, more NT viewpoint, of a plurality of elders, which continues in Rome, I might add, until the middle of the second century.

2. There is most definitely a heavy reliance on Tradition as an authority, being referred to in various ways ("canon," "rule of faith," etc.).

I would have to dispute this, depending on what you mean by "tradition."

3. Mary is highly venerated (much more so than in modern Protestant circles!), with her perpetual virginity being defended by some.

Such veneration, however, comes centuries after her death, and is intimately associated with the rise of monasticism.

4. Ancient worship was liturgical, with the eucharist being the central activity.

True.

5. Baptism was clearly viewed as much more than a "symbol."

True.

6. So far, it seems that the Fathers unanimously affirm the Real Presence in communion.

But what they meant by that is the issue. As you pointed out to Dr. Hahn, transubstantiation is a long way from what is found in the patristic sources.

7. There is a definite concept of a "New Testament priesthood."

I have to ask you what you mean by this. In what sources? When? How early? There certainly is no evidence in the New Testament of such a "priesthood," and the earliest sources we have certainly reflect no such thing. So I have to wonder what you are referring to.

At the beginning of your letter you spoke of making "concessions . . . to the collective witness of early Christianity." Might I ask what your viewpoint is regarding the relationship between Scriptural teaching and the opinions of early Fathers like Irenaeus or Clement of Alexandria? Would you agree, for example, that the "collective witness" that could be garnered for the "Ransom to Satan Theory" of the atonement would be formidable, and yet just as obviously, to be rejected?

The issues you raise to Dr. Hahn are quite correct, and I'd be interested in Gilquist's responses as well, for I am finding Orthodoxy quite interesting these days as well (i.e., my interactions with Orthodox advocates have been most intriguing).

In His service,

James White

BACK TO MY "OPEN LETTER ON ROMAN-CATHOLICISM"