In a recent video, James White responds at some length (about 49 minutes) to my interest in debating him on the topic of sola scriptura.
In the course of his response, he makes a number of factually inaccurate statements (including about me), but to keep matters focused, I will let those pass.
Sola Scriptura
White says he is not reluctant to debate me on sola scriptura.
Good! I take him at his word, and I look forward to arranging a debate on this topic, which Matt Fradd has offered to host (in fact, he made the initial request of both of us).
White refers to his desire to wait until he has configured a new studio that will allow debating at a distance with high sound and video quality.
That’s fine with me, and Matt has indicated it’s fine with him also. We’ve got the holidays coming up, and it’s no problem to wait until it’s convenient for all three of our schedules.
White is skeptical regarding my claim to have anything new to offer in this debate.
I would never claim to have thought of something that no one has thought of in the last 2,000 years of Catholic history.
What I can—and do—say is that I have developed arguments that I have not seen used by the current generation of Catholic apologists or tested in debate with the current generation of Protestant apologists.
White invites me to identify where I have published these arguments and wonders if I might be holding them back until the time of the debate.
I have no interest in setting up “gotcha” moments that surprise a debate opponent. For a quality debate to occur, both parties should be able to think about their opponent’s key points ahead of time.
I have presented my arguments numerous times, including on Catholic Answers Live, and they are found, in summary form, in my book The Bible Is a Catholic Book.
If White will privately send me his current mailing address, I will send him this book, as well as my book Teaching With Authority, which is a theological manual on how the Magisterium works. If he prefers electronic copies, I’ll send them to him if he lets me know his preferred email address.
In fact, if he will do the same for me, I will send him an advanced copy of my entire opening statement (and any other planned statements), so he’ll know exactly what I plan to say.
The Canon of Scripture
White says that the topic of the canon of Scripture would be a good subject to debate, and I’d be happy to debate that with him as well.
I’ve checked with Matt, and he would be happy to have us do several debates, as long as they’re scheduled a month or more apart, which is fine with me.
White objects to the use of the canon that other apologists have made in debates on sola scriptura.
I agree with him that the subject should not be sprung on an opponent who has no time to respond. In fact, no subject should be brought up without the opponent having time to respond to it.
The canon of Scripture is relevant to the issue of sola scriptura, but it is not essential to making the case against the latter.
Consequently, I’d be happy to avoid this subject in a debate on sola scriptura and do a second debate on the canon, instead.
The principal arguments I’d use are covered in my book The Bible Is a Catholic Book, and I’d be happy to exchange advance copies of planned statements with him.
The Catholic View of Authority
White says that Catholics need to step up and defend the positive epistemological claims that they make.
In other words, they should be willing to mount a positive defense of the model they propose for doctrinal authority, which is Scripture + Tradition + the Magisterium.
Fine! That’s quite fair. If Protestants need to mount a positive case for their view of authority (sola scriptura), then Catholics should be as well. And I am.
I’m not interested in a debate focused on irrelevant issues such as actions by Pope Francis that don’t even attempt to engage the Church’s infallibility—for reasons explained here and here.
But I am quite willing to debate the overall Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium paradigm.
A Slate of Debates?
I therefore propose a slate of three debates: one on the Protestant view of authority (sola scriptura), one on the canon of Scripture, and one on the Catholic view of authority (Scripture + Tradition + the Magisterium).
I have no interest in “gotcha” moments. Both presenters should know and be able to think about what arguments they will need to respond to.
I therefore propose that we exchange advance copies of opening statements (and any other planned statements, depending on the format Matt wants us to use).
There’s no hurry on these. The debates would be scheduled at the convenience of all three of us, with at least one month between them, per Matt’s request.
Sound good?
