the chasm of massive difference between the exegetical and theological and historical grounds for the Deity of Christ and the Trinity

vs. the alleged Biblical and sparse and late historical grounds for the Papacy

The chasm is only in your mind. You disagree with the papacy so it is in a massively different category for you. But a JW arguing against the trinity sounds exaactly like a protestant arguing against the papacy. They claim that such an important doctrine would be more clearly taught in scripture if it were true. The say you are putting to much weight on a few texts that are not that clear. They point out that all those great Christians that accepted this doctrine are sinners and they make mistakes.

The reasons you gave why RCs avoid debating about Mary is probably mostly true; that is, they know they don’t have much Scriptural material for those issues; so they start and focus on Sola Scriptura and authority, and if that can be damaged in the Evangelical mind; then that can open them up to the Papacy, and development of Doctrine; so the strategy of the RC apologetics is one of order, it seems. The extra-biblical doctrines, dogmas and practices regarding Mary are more palatable, once Sola Scriptura is abandoned and the need for an infallible authority is lodged in the sensitive Evangelicals mind; and then the authority for that Magisterium to be able to develop things beyond what Scripture teaches becomes more acceptable.

All the former Protestants I have read have admitted this, that the Marian practices and dogmas were the last ones that they had to deal with.

Because they (the Marian dogmas and practices) are so weak from Scripture, you are forced to begin with creating doubt about Scripture as the final infallible authority, and then the development of Doctrine and Magisterium and Papacy is put forth.

Also, Dr. White’s recent discussion of the Papacy and Matthew 16:13-19 with Matthew Bellisario on the DL; and the compilation of articles and videos, that Turretinfan put together

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3360

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3357

on these same issues show that we are stronger exegetical and historical grounds that show the chasm of massive difference between the exegetical and theological and historical grounds for the Deity of Christ and the Trinity

vs. the alleged Biblical and sparse and late historical grounds for the Papacy.

Do you have a link to that short exchange between Beckwith and White?

Following up on this post, two thoughts:

1. One Catholic apologist (maybe Sungenis?) debated James White about the Assumption of Mary some years back–it is one of the “tougher” Marian doctrines to defend, but the Catholic apologist did an admirable job at it.

2. I have found that the first Marian doctrine to discuss is her title, Mother of God. Protestants usually have no idea that this was defined at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD (a pretty early date), nor do they usually realize that Elizabeth confirms this title when Mary comes to visit her (”filled with the Holy Spirit…the mother of my Lord should visit me…”).

Further, when they reject this doctrine and call Mary things like “Jesus’ flesh-mother” or some other thing, they fall into a Nestorian or Monophysite heresy and this can be shown to them.

I just stumbled upon A BOOK that I think you may find quite interesting.

Grace and peace,

David

I responded to your trinity comments in a separate post.

As for James White, I don’t think he adds much except that he is out there. Protestants see him and wonder why Catholics don’t respond. When he actually interacts with an intelligent and charitable Catholic he ends up making a fool of himself. Think of the short exchange he had with Francis Beckwith a few months ago. So he seems to be effective only when he can drive off the serious challengers and interact solely with Catholics who are doctrinally below his weight class. Then he looks strong and I find that sad because many protestants see that and believe what he says about Catholics.