So I’ve Been Asked to Debate James White

I was approached via email yesterday afternoon by Chris Arnzen of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio and to my surprise was asked if I wanted to debate James White on the topic of Confessional Bibliology. I was surprised why a second stringer was asked rather than Dr. Riddle. Not sure what’s up with that. Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to present Confessional Bibliology to any and all who would listen.

As it stands, I told Chris I would be interested and the dates he gave me were from September 21-24.

Right now we are in the preliminary stages. The debate question has yet to be put forth and agreed upon, the same goes for the format.

So let the preparation begin.

To our readership, if there is any material you think would be germane to this debate please comment below.

Blessings.

N.B. – On a separate note, Tommy Wasserman stopped by the blog and left the following comment regarding a post I wrote a couple days ago,

“If you want to read more along the same lines I can recommend my ‘Scribal Alterations and the Reception of Jesus in Early Manuscripts of the Gospels.’ Pages 305–27 in The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries. Vol.2. Edited by Jens Schröter and Christine Jacobi. Edinburgh: T&T Clark/Bloomsbury, 2019.

By the way, I work at Ansgar høyskole.
Best wishes with your ‘bibliology'”

5 thoughts on “So I’ve Been Asked to Debate James White

  1. Great, I’ll be looking forward to it. Riddle debated White within the past year, I’d say he mopped the floor with him on the ending of Mark and Ephesians 3:9. Got him to admit that according to his modern critical text methodology, there is no verse of scripture about which we can have absolute confidence, that any and every verse could in theory be overturned by future manuscript discoveries. In my mind, White gave up the farm with such a concession. I doubt White will ever agree to debate Riddle again.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Stick with your presuppositions. Put him on the defensive with them. What God’s Word says is true. Do not acquiesce then to his presuppositions. Yours is the biblical and historical point of view. Show how he contradicts himself with canonicity.

      Scripture indicates early attack on scripture. God will preserve His Words. The Holy Spirit witnesses internally to believers. He is also the Spirit of unity, showing agreement among God’s people. Preservation is also availability. There also must be a settled text. Anything that contradicts the biblical presuppositions must be wrong, because we know by faith. What God says about it is superior to experience and circumstances.

      If he gets into tit for tat looking at various passages, this doesn’t overturn what God said. We assume God would do what He said He would do.

      You will need to know what you’re going to say to differences in TR editions, difference between the TR and the KJV, and few places in TR that apparently have no manuscript evidence.

      I’m assuming you know these things, but maybe you can try your answers out with people you respect in their approach.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. That’s certainly not how White or his side looked at that debate.. It was a good debate and I think Riddle made some great arguments for the longer ending of Mark as others who hold to the critical text also do but not so good on the Ephesians topic. Think its a good idea as Christians to refrain from debate analysis that uses over the top idioms and stick more with bare bones factual assessments, which of course will be rife with our own personal basis … but thats okay

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: