As I had a post on Catholic grifters, liars and so on and a new book coming soon on the actual Satanists that run the Novus Orco due out later this month, it’s only fair I take my two handed sword to a Protestant Churchian next.
Lest it be said I am uncharitable allow me first of all to state that my personal impression is that White is, at least mostly, simply obstinately stupid and probably not a completely knowing deceiver and grifter like the three stooges I discussed here.
White responded to a tweet by James Fox Higgins with a video that I will now dissect below. Here however was the offending tweet by James.
And here is the start of White’s response, which carries on from the linked timestamp below of about 30min in to at least 1:05 before I stopped watching. To be fair the first 5 minutes or so from about 00:30 to 00:35 he just waffles on about how he’s been defending Sola scriptura for 30 years and yet how almost no one, Protestants included, use the term correctly. Cue speTHial reasons why his definition is super SpeTHial. Which is essentially an appeal to his own completely inexistent authority. So he’s been advocating for a completely idiotic idea for 3 decades without learning anything about the idiocy of it. Not a great start.
Here is a link to the roughly 00:30 start of his response.
My own video response for those allergic to reading is here.
And for those who prefer the written format as I do, here are my notes so there is no dodging of anything later.
1. White Defines Sola Scriptura (SS) as only scripture (the Bible) as being “God breathed”. Which according to him is therefore almost as if God Himself had spoken it and this is a higher quality and inerrant aspect that nothing else has.
Counter: What I would like to know is:
A) who defined what the Bible is actually composed of? In other words which books it is made up of exactly that are “God breathed” only? As far as I know White doesn’t tell us but there is a clue as he states that scripture took 1500 years to be put together (at about 39:30 or so). So presumably he is telling us that all those guys who sat around and put the Bible together about 300 years after Jesus ascended, using letters, parts of oral tradition, various books etc etc basically had done a sloppy job until the Fat German with lust for nuns in his heart came along and “fixed” the Bible. Which until then and for the previous 1200 years obviously had “non-God breathed” writings in it polluting it all up.
B) how do you know when the final editing is completed? I mean, if we had to wait for that beer swigging, sweary, “if the wife is not willing (to have sex) use the maid” German to put the finishing touches, how do we know that a flamboyantly gay transvestite who will decide that all of Paul’s vile, vile, comments on sodomites are ALSO just apocrypha like the letter from James that squarely rejects the other idiotic idea of Protestantism, Sola Fides?
I mean that’s why Martin the nun-banging “monk” decided James was not “canon” after all and all those poor martyrs of the previous 1500 years just had it wrong don’t you know.
And who’s to say Kaytlin with a y, (formerly Bruce with the deuce) will not further educate us on the benefits of being a raging sodomite and how all references to the opposite of that were just apocrypha too?
2. At about 38:30 or so – White states that the enemies degrade scripture precisely so it can then be attacked as all just non-God breathed stuff.
Counter: A bit of projection going on there, since changing the supposedly infallible Bible is precisely what Luther did as item 1 on his list really. Especially since the Latin translation of the original Hebrew (Old testament) and Greek (New testament) known as the Vulgate is a better translation than the Protestant KJV which used manuscripts for the Old Testament that had been edited by literal pharisees who rejected Christ (the modern day “Jews” which are Talmudic Jews since original Jews that actually followed their religion became Christians).
And the Catholic Bible certainly hasn’t changed or been edited at all, so… who exactly is degrading things here?
3. At about 40:30 he makes probably the most hilarious hypocritical statement of the decade, accusing non-Protestants of just inserting their own ideas into the Bible and all of them just having their own views instead of God’s.
Counter: Hahahahahahaha. I mean really. That’s the whole point of Protestantism! Everyone to interpret for themselves! Literally interpreth as thou will is the only law of Protestantism.
Catholicism has dogmatic principles and beliefs that are explicitly stated. You can’t be Catholic if you reject any of those dogmatic positions. It is literally the opposite of what he is saying. It is Protestants who make it up to suit their needs, not Catholics, who literally have a book of all the canon laws and dogmatic catechisms all set out in writing. Unified. One Church. One approved Dogma. Not 40,000 and counting.
4. He almost outdoes himself at about 41:30 though when he states that you can’t degrade part of the Bible to make any part of it lower or less “God Breathed” than any other part.
Counter: You know except for the book of James…. and… the other “apocrypha” that made Martin look foolish. That had to be degraded in the first place. Except that wasn’t *akkkshually* degrading the Bible that had existed in the same form for 1200 years, not really, because Martin, like Mohammed really, was just another perfectly good and proper prophet that had to fix the Bible and decide better for everyone what God really meant.
5. At about 42:30 White says that papal infallibility is an example of this “adding in stuff by the reader” and that it happened 150 years ago and is claimed by the Catholics as part of oral tradition.
Counter: This is just flat out wrong and due to either stupendous ignorance and complete lack of even 30 seconds research on google, or just plain outright lying. I’ll assume the first to be nice about it. (Which however means the man is extremely stupid since he speaks authoritatively on things he has literally not even bothered to google for 10 seconds and which any half competent Catholic knows off the bat). The writings of the first 700 years of Christianity ALL described the Bishop of Rome as having Primacy over the other Patriarchates. See the writings of Clement of Rome(~91-101A.D), Cyprus of Carthage (~200-258 A.D.), Pope Leo I, Hormisdas and Agatho (~681 A.D.), to mention a few.
Furthermore, Papal infallibility was formally invoked by the Franciscan Pierre de Jean Olivi (1248-1298) when he was worried that a future fake pope (antipope) would strip the Franciscans of their rights. Papal infallibility meant that a future Pope could not undo what a previous Pope had already done. This was highlighted by Olivi, but had in any case always been assumed and used throughout the history of the Church, just like when the Code of Canon Law of 1917 was put together all it did was to formalise in one place the rules the Church has always had. And for those saying but… but… Papal Primacy is not Papal infallibility, you’re not thinking things through, or possibly you are also very ignorant of Catholic Dogma.
Catholic dogmatic positions:
1. The Magisterium of the Church and thus the Church is infallible because of the supernatural protection it enjoys due to the promise of Jesus to always be with his Church. Since Jesus is infallible, His protection means the Church too will be infallible even though at the end only a tiny remnant of the faithful will remain. Nor does this mean the Church will not have bad, flawed, and very fallible men in it. In fact it is assumed all of them are.
2. The Magisterium is headed by the Pope.
3. The Bishop of Rome ALWAYS settled tied votes and disputes between the other Bishops (primacy) and since the Church is infallible and the Pope is the head of it, he also has to be infallible when making dogmatic official (ex cathedra) pronouncements.
In any case Papal infallibility derives from the Bible, primarily Matthew 16:18-19.
6. He then makes the most hypocritical statement of the last ten years at about 43:40 when he states that, well, you can’t have “new” revelation like Papal infallibility (he lies about papal infallibility being new as explained above but that aside…) because it wasn’t taught for the first 1000 years of the church… (it was, as explained above, but let’s leave that aside too…)
Counter: So… you CANNOT have new revelation that wasn’t taught for the previous 1000 years but… you can have *new, super-improved* MARTIN revelation another 500 years AFTER that! Like divorce and banging nuns being A-OK! The hypocrisy…. it just boggles the mind.
7. And lastly at about 1:05 White literally says that Ratzinger is wrong as can be but is still a brilliant theologian. Because he was the head of the modern Inquisition.
Counter: Aside from the fact that Ratzinger is no more Catholic or a theologian of any sort except perhaps of Moloch-ism than Bergoglio is, White is clearly Impressed by titles. Saying Ratzinger is completely wrong yet brilliant at his ONE JOB. Is basically like saying that a pilot that crashes a perfectly functioning plane right on his first flight during standard take off with no adverse weather is nevertheless a brilliant pilot. Of course, given White’s demonstrated sub-normal intelligence, he may very well make such a statement, all while fancying himself a very good judge of piloting ability for the last 30 years!
David Dunning and Justin Kruger should probably present him with a plaque or something.
CONCLUSION
What we can conclude from this is quite categorically a graphical illustration of the level of clarity of thought and reason present in the usual Protestant theologian. Behold:
