[quote="Cruxis117, post:1, topic:248454"]
I was on the chatroom of his ministry, and he listed off Keating, Staples, Akin, and others as not wanting to debate him. It appears that he think that it's because they can't handle that the (in his words) "facts are the facts". Why won't Catholic Apologists such as the ones I've mentioned and others not debate James White?
I heard JW desperately wants to debate Scott Hahn, issueing several challenges to him, but Hahn would not bite.
foubd the article.....matt1618.freeyellow.com/jwsola.html.
James White spends much time attacking Catholics, both professional Apologists, debaters. It must be admitted that he is one of the most effective Protestant apologists around; nevertheless, after being shown that he is wrong, whether it be on justification, sola Scriptura, etc. his usual retort is that the person is uneducated on the issue, or misrepresentative of his views. He seems to have an arrogance that shows that he is himself to be infallible, while opponents are just not with it. In order to distract attention from the errors that he is shown, he will often go on an ad-hominem attack mode, divert attention, and thus belittle his opponents. Other Catholics that have emailed him questions and comments (on his book or web-page attacks on Catholicism) show his responses to many times be terse and unresponsive to the points shown him.,
White on his web page attack on Catholicism uses the same tactics on those Catholic apologists who have debated him of the highest caliber, such as Pat Madrid, Tim Staples, and Bob Sungenis. He attacks articles written by recent converts such as Stephen Ray and David Palm as them misrepresenting the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura. Of course, there are differing Protestant views of what exactly Sola Scriptura means. Ironically, in his rebuttals, White will often himself misrepresent or misunderstand what his opponent is saying.
Here I want to focus on the letter that White sent to Tim Staples, after they had a debate on Sola Scriptura. This can be found here. After reading the letter by White, I would not be surprised if Staples wants no further contacts with the man.
I listened to the debate between Tim Staples and James White on Sola Scriptura, and I encourage anybody to get it. In White’s letter to Staples you would think that all Staples did was misrepresent White, and White really showed him! After listening to this debate, I thought to myself, is this the same debate that he is writing about?
Before I get to the contents of his letter to Staples, I will comment on what White conveniently left out of his commentary on the debate. He never answered Staple’s points on two important things: 1) Where does the bible teach anywhere that the Word of God for after the apostolic age is reduced to writing? Where does the bible anywhere say one must hold only to the written word? If White can not provide an answer to these questions Sola Scriptura is absolutely false (Of course Sola Scriptura has many more weaknesses than this). White did not even pretend to provide an answer to this burning question. How did White in the debate deal with 2 Thes. 2:15? “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” First, White argues that this is not a command! Say what? Paul writes “Stand fast, and hold the traditions.” If we read the context of Chapter 2, Paul is writing about not falling into deception (about making sure that people not be deceived vv. 3-12). What is to prevent these people from being deceived? V. 15 explains quite clearly that Paul COMMANDS the Thessalonians to STAND FAST AND HOLD THE TRADITIONS, whether written OR ORAL. This is what prevents them from falling into deception. The oral AS WELL AS the written tradition. So Whites’ argument that this is not a command is nonsense. When challenged by Staples he provided no biblical quotation or reasoning that Paul says to stop having oral tradition as binding, but continue to hold on to scripture as the only binding, infallible rule of faith.