Archive for the ‘James White’ Category

Responding to Jeff Riddle – Regarding James White and (the real) Turretin

May 12, 2017

Our brother in Christ, Jeff Riddle (JR), has posted some comments regarding James White (JW) and the real Francis Turretin (FT), which because I’m a friend of the former and a fan of the latter, I would like to address:

JR wrote:

1. JW typically confuses the TR and Majority text position with KJV-Onlyism. Furthermore, he criticizes KJV-Onlyism for all the wrong reason.

I note that the problem with KJV-Onlyism is not, as JW argues, that the KJV was translated from 1604-11 and is, therefore, outdated, but that KJV-Onlyism is inconsistent with confessional Christianity’s assertion that the Bible was immediately inspired in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) and not in an English translation.

a) JW distinguishes amongst a variety of related positions in his book, the King James Only Controversy. So, I don’t think “typically confuses” is very accurate. He does sometimes lump them together, but that’s because they often use similar (flawed) arguments.
b) JW agrees with JR that one reason KJVO is wrong is that the text was inspired in the original languages as distinct from the translations. However, there are also other reasons for opposing the KJVO position. Moreover, not all KJVO folks necessarily say that the KJV/KJB was immediately inspired.

JR wrote:

2. JW wrongly describes Scrivener’s edition of the Greek NT as “not a real Greek NT” since it represents an edition of the TR which underlies the KJV.

Scrivener’s edition is an attempt to (in essence) create a Greek text from the English text, by matching up the corresponding Greek reading that would go with the English reading. In that sense, it’s like a back translation into Greek from another language, and consequently although it is in Greek, it’s not a Greek text in the usual sense.


3. JW rejects the TR and Majority text positions on the basis of the fact that this is not, at present, the position taught “in every major” Reformed seminary” or by “leading scholars.”

JW may mention that point, but it’s not the main reason for rejecting the TR position or any of the Majority text positions.


4. JW asserts that Protestant scholastics, like Francis Turretin, were just “wrong” when they defended the traditional text of the Bible, including texts like the traditional rendering of 1 Corinthians 15:47, the ending of Mark, the pericope adulterae, and the comma Johanneum.

I point out that Turretin likely was not denying the existence of textual variants but affirming that the traditional text was indeed found in all “faithful,” “received,” or “orthodox” copies of the Bible. See my upcoming article in PRJ “John Calvin and Text Criticism.”

He does assert that they were wrong (in specific cases), but he also explains why they were wrong (in those cases where JW thinks they are wrong). Moreover, methodologically, Turretin agrees with JW. For example, Turretin endorses the approach of using the collation of various copies to restore the original readings.


5. JW argues that p75 and Vaticanus (B) were “the text of the early church” and were more reliable than the text which was affirmed in the Reformation era.

There was not one single text that was affirmed in the Reformation era. There were multiple printed editions, and folks like Calvin and Turretin endorsed the use of textual criticism to restore the original text. Hopefully it is also clear that there was not one single text of the early church, either, for the ancient uncials and papyri have differences amongst them. Nevertheless, those ancients texts certainly have the advantage of being older, whatever else one might say about their reliability.


I point out that although the TR was not printed until the Reformation era, it was based on mss. with antiquity equal to that of p75 and B. In addition, the line represented by p75 and B came to an end in the 500s and ceased to be copied, not appearing again till revived in the 1800s.

a) It’s simply not true that the TR was based on manuscripts with antiquity equal to P75 and B.
b) The Alexandrian text type definitely was copied less after Muslims decimated the Christian populations in North Africa and the middle east.
c) But there is at least one Alexandrian text type manuscript from as late as 1044 (minuscule 81). There is also ninth century minuscules (minuscules 33 and 892), which are from the Alexandrian text type. So, the “ceased to be copied” claim is not really true.


JW and other Reformed evangelicals who embrace the modern critical text have a rather difficult problem on their hands. They express admiration for the Protestant fathers (like Turretin—or Calvin, Owen, the framers of the 1689 confession, etc.) then are rather embarrassed to discover that these men defended the traditional text out of conviction and not, as they too often assume, out of ignorance.

Conviction and ignorance aren’t opposites. Knowledge and ignorance are opposites. As mentioned above, Turretin (and other Reformers) methodologically agreed with the use of collation to obtain the original readings. We have more knowledge of the text than they did. Thus, the difference between JW’s position and FT’s position is not so much much because of different convictions, but because of different information.


Lastly, I make reference to my sermon last Sunday on the Trinity based on chapter two, paragraph three of the 1689 confession, noting not only the use of 1 John 5:7 there as a leading prooftext for the Trinity but also how the 1689 Baptist Confession refers to the second person of the Godhead as “the Word or the Son,” making specific and explicit use of the comma Johanneum in the articulation of the Trinity (cf. chapter two, paragraph three in the 1689 with the WCF and the Savoy here). This represents a significant problem for those who affirm the 1689 confession but reject the comma.

John 1:1 teaches that Jesus is the Word, and John 1:34 teaches that Jesus is the Son of God. So, there is no problem. The comma does not use the phrase “Word or the Son,” so that is not an explicit or specific use of the comma. Moreover, while the prooftexts of the confessions include I John 5:7, that’s obviously not the only prooftext provided, and the doctrine of the Trinity does not depend on the authenticity of that text.


Responding to Steve Tassi on Romans 9

September 8, 2016

In his recent live interaction with Dr. James White, Steve Tassi argued that while Romans 9 is referring to election, it is not discussing salvation when it refers to mercy.

First, he argues that we must consider the audiences spoken to.  He does not clearly elaborate on this point, but his implication seems to be that the audience spoken to is Jewish readers.

The audience, however, are gentile Roman believers.  We see this in the first chapter:

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

So, the audience is not the nation of Israel, but rather is believing Gentiles.

Glorious Salvation Terms
Second, he argues that we must consider the references made are to Pharaoh, Moses, Isaac, and Rebekah, rather than to the typical terms that Paul uses when referencing salvation, such as “the blood of Jesus,” “the cross,” and other references to blood sacrifice and grace.

Dr. White countered this point by observing that the chapter and verse divisions are somewhat artificial, and that he demonstrated a continual flow from Romans 8.

To elaborate on that point more fully, Christ’s death is explicitly mentioned in Romans 8:34.  Moreover, Romans 9:32-33 specifically mention faith in Christ.  Tassi surely cannot deny that both Romans 8 and Romans 10 are about salvation, so his assertion that Romans 9 is not about salvation because of the usage of terms, seems weak.

Context of Cited Texts
Third, he argues the Old Testament material cited or referred to by Paul never refers to salvation in its original context.

Dr. White countered this by pointing out that it’s more important to note how Paul uses them, then how they were originally used.

To provide an example, in Galatians 4, Paul points to Hagar and Ishmael in contrast to Sarah and Isaac. Moreover, Paul explicitly interprets those figures as an allegory, rather than relying on their original context.

Furthermore, it is Pauline to shift between Old Testament images and analogous New Testament ideas.  For example, 1 Corinthians 10 is full of this kind of transition.

Tassi essentially concludes that the references in Romans 9 are references to election and mercy with respect to national Israel vis-a-vis the destruction of the nation, rather than to the church and salvation from hell.

This conclusion is unjustified.  To the extent it is premised on the arguments presented in its support, those arguments have been shown above to be incorrect.  Moreover, it is a conclusion that runs directly contrary to the text of Romans 9.  For example:

Romans 9:23-24 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

How can that be mercy on the nation of Israel if it includes not only Jews but also Gentiles?  It cannot.  Which is one of numerous reasons that Tassi’s presentation on Romans 9 should be rejected.


James White: The Same Sex Marriage Debate vs Codrington

November 3, 2015

Dr. White debated Graeme Codrington on the topic of same sex marriage (link to debate on SermonAudio). I agreed with Codrington that Dr. White did an excellent job defending the “traditional” view. I wanted to mention a few points that occurred to me in listening to the debate, while encouraging you, my reader, to go listen to the debate for yourself. Also check out the related debate that I mention in my comments below.

1) Heteronomative Scripture
Dr. White made a good point in the debate that it’s more than just the “six verses” that specifically call out homosexual practices as sin. Instead, the remainder of Scripture provides a positive presentation regarding sexuality. That positive presentation makes heterosexual relations the norm. That’s an important point, because it frames the issue. Within the context of Scripture, the pattern is “husband and wife” not simply life partners.

2) Patriarchal Scripture
Codrington raised the point that Scriptures present a patriarchal model in which there is male headship and even male ownership of wives and children. I noticed a similar issue arise in the debate between Jason Wallace and Scott Dalgarno (link to youtube video of that debate). One thing we need to be prepared to do is to confound Codrington and Dalgarno by affirming that the Biblical norm of patriarchy. Basic consistency does demand this from us – if we are going to affirm the creation ordinance of heterosexual marriage, we should also affirm the creation ordinance of how that heterosexual marriage is to be ordered. There is a sort of perverse consistency to Codrington and Dalgarno rejecting the Biblical norm of heterosexuality, given that they have already rejected the Biblical norm of patriarchy. If Biblical norms for the ordering of society matter, we should hold the. If they don’t matter, we shouldn’t insist on them.

3) Ownership of Humans in Scripture
Codrington and Dalgarno raised the ubiquitous objection that Scripture doesn’t condemn slavery. Again, we need to be prepared to confound these men by affirming the Scripture’s position. We are “bought with a price” (1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23). We are slaves of Jesus, our master. He owns us. We are his property. We are not absolutely opposed to slavery on Enlightenment grounds, even though we are opposed to any form of slavery that is based on denying the full humanity of people based on their skin color or the like. We recognize that the Bible affirmed that slaves were the property of their masters (e.g. Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.). Thus, we don’t agree with the idea that it is somehow intrinsically immoral for a man to own another man, even though we recognize limitations on that ownership (see the same verses above).

Both Codrington and Dalgarno seem to take for granted that the Bible was wrong on the relationship of masters and slaves, husbands and wives, and parents and children. The “liberal church” has certainly begun to take those debates for granted. We need to be ready to shock them by affirming that the Bible was right on those things.

Molinism – Responses to a Some Attempted Defenses

August 20, 2015

Someone posting under the name Richard Bushey has a post attempting to defend Molinism against some of the criticisms offered by my friend, Dr. James White (link). I’d like to rebut a few points.

Is Molinism too heavily reliant on philosophy? Mr. Bushey argues that philosophy is inherent to every kind of theology. However, that misses the point. The problem is not simply that Molinism employs philosophy but that it is (at best) totally speculative, based solely on philosophy, rather than being based on Scripture with philosophy being employed to draw out what is implied by Scripture.

Does Molinism begin with libertarian free will aka the “autonomous will of man”? It certainly does. Mr. Bushey says that Molinist just “recognize that freedom of the will exists.” The problem is that Molinists cannot establish this starting principle from Scripture. The Scriptures teach that man has a will and that he makes decisions, but not that man’s will is autonomous. On the contrary, the Scriptures have plenty of contrary examples.

Does Molinism compromise God’s sovereignty? Yes, though not as much Mr. Bushey seems to be willing to let it. Mr. Bushey thinks that on Molinism, God “does not have to dictate every single movement to have sovereignty.” Actually, on Molinism God does decide every single movement in his decree to instantiate a single feasible world. Even so, God’s sovereignty is compromised because there is a difference between the set of “possible worlds” that God could create, and the set of “feasible worlds” that humans would cooperate in bringing about. Thus, God’s choices are limited by human autonomy. Oddly, they are limited by a human autonomy not even yet in existence and consequently having no actual basis.

Mr. Bushey admits, “the Molinist is saying that with the additive of human freedom, then God’s choices become limited because he wants to persist in allowing humans the luxury and virtue of freedom of the will.” Since this imagined freedom supposedly results in the eternal damnation of many, it hardly seems appropriate to call it a luxury, and it quite obviously isn’t a virtue when exercised in that way.

Furthermore, the idea that freedom to fall into damnation is somehow a good thing contradicts the idea that heaven is going to be a good place, since we won’t have the possibility of falling into damnation. Similarly, God himself necessarily lacks the freedom to sin, which suggests that the freedom to sin is certainly not a virtue and is not truly a luxury.

Finally, the Scriptures do not teach or suggest that God has a desire that humans be autonomous. That’s that unbiblical philosophical presupposition creeping back in.

Is predestination still personal on Molinism? In some strains of Molinism, where it is suggested that God tries to save the maximum number of people, it does seem impersonal to that extent. Naturally, there are a variety of Molinistic views, so William Lane Craig’s views on that point are not representative of the entire spectrum of Molinists. When God chooses to instantiate a particular world, that inevitably leads to a particular group of individuals certainly being saved and all the others being certainly lost, on Molinism. So, from that perspective, it is personal and individual.

Who dealt God the cards? One of the central problems of Molinism is the grounding objection. I’ve dealt with at length in a previous post (here), so I won’t repeat it all. In short, while human autonomy is supposed to limit God’s choices prior to the final decree of creation, the problem is that there is no existing created thing at that logical instant to provide the limitation, and the limitation is not internal to God. It’s an insoluable problem that can get glossed over, but which ought to trouble every Molinist. On Molinism, God is not literally dealt cards by a card dealer, but what other than a co-eternal being could limit God before God’s decree to create?

Does Molinism retain freedom of the will? On Molinism, a person in a particular situation would always make the same decision. That does not look, walk, or quack like autonomy – it sounds like determinism. IF a die is a fair die, it has an equal probability of coming up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. But the Molinist will would, in a particular situation, always come up the same. That looks more like loaded dice.

Is David’s experience in Keliah evidence for Molinism? Some Molinists think that God’s answer to David’s hypothetical question supports the idea of middle knowledge, because it suggests God knows what a person would do, even in circumstances that don’t come to pass. Unfortunately, these Molinists have overlooked that God’s answer is exactly the same as it would be if the men of Keliah were purely deterministic. If you don’t see why, just substitute a non-human in David’s question – “If I stay, will the walls collapse on me?” Obviously, in that case, the answer has nothing to do with middle knowledge. The same is the case with David’s actual question. The only reason for thinking it has to do with middle knowledge is the insertion of the idea of an autonomous human will – an insertion that lacks basis in Scripture.


I’ve skipped over the stuff about Dr. White supposedly not knowing various things. Those accusations can hopefully be seen to be false in view of the explanations above.

Chris Pinto vs. James White – Debate Summarized

December 17, 2013

The Chris Pinto vs. James White debate on whether Codex Sinaiticus is a modern forgery can be boiled down to a few considerations.

1) Constantine Simonides claimed that he wrote the document based on collating pre-existing manuscripts, and that his uncle corrected the document.

Both sides agree that he so claimed. Dr. White demonstrated that these claims are essentially impossible, as explained below.

2) The most sympathetic source for Simonides says that Simonides was not a truthful person.

Dr. White raised this point, and Pinto did not dispute it except to say that this source was not the only supportive source and that the source himself says Simonides did not always lie.

3) There are no known examplars that could have been the source for Codex Sinaiticus.

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto’s response was to point out that the source(s) could be as-yet-unknown manuscripts on Mt. Athos.

4) Codex Sinaiticus was written by several different, distinguishable scribes (as evidenced by different handwriting, different style of abbreviations, and different accuracy of work).

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto did not respond to it.

5) Codex Sinaiticus has corrections by multiple different correctors.

Dr. White raised this point, Pinto did not respond to it except to say that two other men (a monk and a scribe) may have been involved in the corrections.

6) The amount of time necessary for collating multiple manuscripts of the entire Bible (plus some apocrypha) would have been prohibitive in the timeline proposed by Simonides.

Dr. White raised this point, and Pinto responded that possibly his uncle started on the project years before Simonides began.

Additional notes:

1. Regarding the Mt. Athos manuscripts, there is an on-going digitization project (link). At one point, Mr. Pinto alleges that the one way to resolve the mystery was to explore the Mt. Athos library for manuscripts corresponding to Simonides’ claims. He won’t be able to stand behind that argument from ignorance forever.

2. Simonides himself states that the collation began after Simonides himself joined the project, as demonstrated by Dr. White. So, although the uncle allegedly had corrected the other manuscripts in advance, the collation project had not been done in advance, according to the primary source for Mr. Pinto’s theory.


The fact that the manuscript was written by several different scribes and was corrected by numerous additional hands makes it impossible for Simonides’ story to be true. The necessary hypothesis would be that Simonides deliberately altered his handwriting several different times during the writing of the manuscript to give the impression of different scribes. Such a hypothesis is simply implausible – there is no reason for Simonides to do this for the purpose of creating a text for the Tsar (as he claimed).

The fact that collation of documents takes an enormous amount of time, especially when one of the documents is not in the base language (allegedly one of the manuscripts was a Syriac manuscript), also weighs against Simonides claim. While it might be conceivable that such a collation could take place, the necessary time and training for such a collation to be undertaken are simply not there.

The fact that the supposed exemplars of Sinaiticus do not produce the unique readings of Sinaiticus and the fact that some of these unique readings are found in later discovered papyri also weighs against Simonides’ claim.

In view of these facts, it’s hard to see how anyone could come to any other conclusion than that Simonides was not the scribe of Sinaiticus, whether or not Simonides actually did create a manuscript intended for the Tsar.


Elected for the Non-Elect

November 12, 2013

My friend, Dr. James White, recently reviewed a portion of a sermon by Eric Hankins, in which Pastor Hankins tried to argue that the elect were chosen for the non-elect. There is a certain intuitive appeal of that position: Christ is the Elect One, and Paul and Jeremiah were chosen for service. It doesn’t do full justice to passages like Romans 9, though.

Was Jacob chosen for the benefit of Esau? Or was it written, “the elder [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob]”? Surely the latter.

Was Moses chosen for the benefit of Pharaoh? Or was it almost the reverse? Again, the latter seems to be the case.

Hankins tried to say that God never gives up on anyone. But is that really true? Did God never give up on Pharaoh or the Egyptians? What about the households of Ahab and Jeroboam? Or let’s get more dramatic – what about the whole earth in the days of Noah? Did God ever give up on the rest of the world except the eight souls on the ark? The answer has to be “yes,” since God sent the flood on them.

Hankins’ rhetoric may sound nice, but it is wrong. The elect are chosen for the glory of God, first and foremost, and they are also chosen to serve one another:

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.


A Couple Quick Comparisons between Dr. White and Dr. Caner

September 9, 2013

Ergun Caner said: “I got my doctorate in Global Apologetics because I’m curious.” (source)

James White actually has earned degrees in apologetics:
  • Th.M. Apologetics, Faraston Seminary, 1995
  • Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998
  • D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002
Ergun Caner said that he debated Shabir Ally (source).
James White actually has debated Shabir Ally:
  • Is the New Testament We Possess Today Inspired? May, 2006, vs. Shabir Ally, Biola University
  • Did Jesus Offer Himself on the Cross as a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of God’s People?, October, 2007, vs. Shabir Ally, Seattle, WA
  • Is Jesus Prophesied in the OT? vs. Shabir Ally, November 17, 2008, London, England
  • Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible? vs. Shabir Ally, November 17, 2008, London England

What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an, by James White – a Review

May 15, 2013

With great pleasure, I recently read my friend James White’s book, “What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur’an,” published by Bethany House Publishers. It may be helpful to begin by clarifying what the book is not, then identifying what I liked about the book.

The book is not “what every Christian needs to know about Islam.” While understanding the Qur’an is probably the central part of understanding Islam, this book is narrowly focused on the Qur’an. You won’t find extensive discussion of all the different schools of Islamic thought, all the different sects and sub-sects of Islam, or discussion of the behavior of Muslims in various countries, except to the extent it is relevant to the topic at hand.

The book is not “what every Muslim needs to know about the Qur’an.” While there are some sections that will be particularly helpful for a Muslim seeker who is trying to understand why he should be Jesus’ disciple, rather than Mohammad’s, this book is not written primarily to Muslims but to Christians.

The book is not “everything there is to know about the Qur’an.” While there is in-depth analysis of a number of passages of the Qur’an, and there is a variety of overview material, much of the Qur’an is not discussed in detail.

The book is not “what every Christian needs to know about the Hadith/Sunnah.” While a number of important ahadith are discussed in the book, the various collections of hadith cover numerous topics besides the Qur’an and are the basis for the Sunnah, which includes plenty of things that are extra-quarranic.

The book is not “what every Christian needs to know about Arabic.” While a number of Arabic words are used, with the exception of one illustration, I believe they are all given in a Romanized form. Moreover, the number of Arabic words is really dictated by the fact that the words tend to have a technical meaning in connection with Islam, and are not necessarily considered translatable by Muslims. There is a helpful glossary at the back of the book for some important terms and phrases, and other terms and phrases are explained in the text itself.

The book is not “the Qur’an for dummies,” “Qur’an 101,” “what most people already know about the Qur’an” or the like. While there is some overview material, the book aims to educate Christians and elevate their knowledge of the subject.

The book is not “The most sensational and shocking aspects of Islam or the life of Mohammad.” While such books may have their place, this book is not in that category. If there are materials that will shock or offend Muslims in this book, they are not being presented simply for that shock value.

From my standpoint, the high point of the book was chapter 4, which deals with the Qur’an and the Trinity. In my view, the Qur’an’s treatment of the Trinity is one of the fatal flaws of Islam. Dr. White does a masterful job of proving from the Qur’an and other early Islamic sources that the author of the Qur’an did not correctly understand the Trinity, which demonstrates that the purported authorship of the Qur’an cannot be the true authorship.

Two other chapters I expect Christians will find useful are chapter 10, which deals with the sources and parallel passages in the Qur’an and chapter 11, which deals with the textual transmission of the Qur’an. Chapter 10 could have been two chapters – one on the sources that the Qur’an draws on, and one on the parallel passages in the Qur’an. The section on the sources illuminates the fact that Qur’an draws on a variety of pre-Islamic sources that are unreliable Jewish or heretical legend.

The other section of chapter 10 deals with parallel passages in the Qur’an. This section is not just interesting from the standpoint of highlighting some of the inconsistencies in the Qur’an, but is also interesting from the standpoint of providing rebuttal material when dealing with Muslim criticisms of the Gospels. After all, while there may be differences between Matthew’s account and Mark’s account of a given event, the Qur’an (in a single work) has differing accounts of the same events.

Chapter 11 is similarly useful in terms of providing rebuttal material to the oft-repeated allegation that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved. The chapter illustrates that such a claim is undermined by the historical evidence we have, much of it from an Islamic perspective, but also from the earliest major Christian interactions with Islam.

I did scour the book to see if there were things in it with which I would disagree. The few things with which I would disagree are basically trivial points that don’t deal with the substance. Let me address the biggest point of disagreement, to illustrate how small the disagreement is. I agree with Dr. White that one possible basis for Muhammad’s misconceptions regarding the Trinity are the idols that were growing in acceptance in the churches in Mohammad’s region during his lifetime. In particular, he probably saw professed Christians who carried images of Mary and Jesus with them, or saw such images installed in churches. However, I would not expect that the images would be statuary in 7th century middle-eastern churches (more likely paintings, tapestries, or similar flat portrayals), nor do I expect that there were any crucifixes (crosses, yes, but not crucifixes), and I think it is unlikely any of them would have any purported likeness of the Father creating world (presumably Dr. White has in mind the atrocity found on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel). (Cf. p. 87 of the book.) Keep in mind that all of this discussion is about a point on which Dr. White is not dogmatic (he phrases the matter in terms of speculation and as a mere possibility) and does not really matter for Dr. White’s argument (after all, Christian iconography probably did contribute to Mohammad’s errors). My other points of question or disagreement are even more trivial than this minor point and are definitely not worth mentioning. I would, however, hope that if any Muslim readers spot errors in the book they will bring them to my attention.

In conclusion, the book is a resource that I would recommend to anyone who plans to discuss things theological with their Muslim friends, relatives, or neighbors. The book is not “what every Muslim knows about the Qur’an,” and I think it is likely that your Muslim friends, relatives, or neighbors are unlikely to know all the material that is in this book. The book responds to a number of widely-held myths about or based on the Qur’an, and it is likely that Muslims you meet will have heard those misconceptions. Being prepared to talk with them may help you open the door to discussion of why they ought to be Jesus’ disciples, rather than (not “in addition to”) being the followers of Mohammad. This book is a valuable asset for such preparation.


In the interest of disclosure, I blog at Dr. White’s blog, in addition to being his friend.

Free Debates Featuring James White

April 11, 2013

I was reluctant to post this list, because I’m concerned that people who might otherwise support Dr. White’s ministry by buying copies of the debates will just watch them for free.  However, I trust that people who would support Dr. White’s ministry by buying his debates will consider doing so in some other way, since his ministry is reliant on support of Christians who support what he’s doing.

Moreover, keep in mind that the debates below represent less than a quarter of the debates Dr. White has done.  (see here for a list of debates you can get at – that list may need to be updated at some point)

1. David Bernard vs. James White, “Are Tongues Necessary?” (informal radio debate on WMCA radio in New York, circa August 18, 2003) (mp3) (Audio-only on Youtube part 1/5)(part 2/5)(part 3/5)(part 4/5)(part 5/5)
2. Jack Moorman vs. James White, “Should we Exclusively Use the King James Bible?” (television debate on Revelation TV, February 2, 2011) (Youtube)
3. Jalal Abualrub vs. James White, “Is Jesus Christ God?” (March 2008) (Youtube – Part 1)(Youtube – Part 2)
4. Nadir Ahmed vs. James White, “Can We Trust What the New Testament Tells Us about Jesus and the Gospel?” (March 21, 2008) (Youtube)
5. Ehteshaam Gulam vs. James White, “Jesus:  A Prophet of Allah or Divine Son of God?” (June 21, 2010) (Youtube)
6. Robert Fastiggi vs. James White, “The Doctrine of Mary Debate” (Youtube – part 1)(part 2)(part 3)(part 4)(part 5)(part 6)(part 7)(part 8)(part 9)
7. Robert Fastiggi vs. James White, “Indulgences Debate” (Youtube)
8. Abdullah al Andalusi vs. James White, “The Big Trinity Debate” (Youtube – part 1)(part 2)(part 3)
9. Abdullah al Andalusi vs. James White, “Does the Trinity Equal Polytheism?” (The “Unbelievable” radio show on Premier Christian Radio)(Youtube – video)
10. Robert Fastiggi vs. James White, “Papal Infallibility Debate” (Youtube)
11. James White vs. Adnan Rashid, “Did Jesus & Mohammed preach the same thing?” (Trinity College) (Youtube – Part 1)(Youtube – Part 2)
12. James White vs. Adnan Rashid “Bible or the Qur’an?” (UCD, Ireland) (Youtube – Part 1) (Youtube – Part 2)
13. NT Wright vs. James White “St. Paul and Justification” (Unbelievable Radio) (Youtube)
14. James White vs Shabir Ally – Did Jesus Claim Deity? (2012) (Youtube)
15. Shabir Ally vs James White – “Is the Bible the inspired Word Of God” (Youtube)
16. James White vs. Robert Sungenis “Predestination Debate 2010” (part 1)(part 2)(part 3)(part 4)(part 5)(part 6)(part 7)(part 8)(part 9)(part 10)(part 11)
17. James White vs. Robert Sungenis “Purgatory Debate 2010” (part 1)(part 2)
18. James White vs. Robert Sungenis “Papal Infallibility Debate” (Youtube)
19. James White vs. Robert Sungenis “Is the Roman Mass a Propitiatory Sacrifice” (Youtube)
20. James White vs. Robert Sungenis “Assumption Debate 2010” (part 1)(part 2)(part 3)(part 4)(part 5)(part 6)(part 7)(part 8)(part 9)(part 10)(part 11)
21. Dr. James White – Two Different Views on Hell Debated (Unbelievable Radio Program) (Youtube)
22. James White vs Zakir Hussain “Is Muhammed Prophesied in the Bible?” (Youtube)
23. James White vs. Sami Zaatari “Was Jesus Crucified?” (Youtube)
24. Dr. Anthony Buzzard vs Dr. James White “Is Jesus God?” (part 1) (part 2) (part 3)
25. Daniel Peterson/William Hamblin vs. James White (Mormonism topic) (Youtube Playlist)

Listen to Dr. James White on Unbelievable Radio

February 7, 2013

As of February 7, 2013, you can get the following podcast episodes from Unbelievable Radio, via iTunes:

  1. 22 September 2012 | The Anti-Islam film and protests – James White and  Muhammad Al-Hussaini
  2. 19 May 2012 | Was Jesus a Calvinist? James White and  David Instone-Brewer
  3. 30 Apr 2011 | Emerging Church Debate – Brian McLaren and  James White 
  4. 12 Feb 2011 | Is the King James Version the best? Kyle Paisley and  James White debate
  5. 13 Mar 2010 | Can we trust the doctrine of the Trinity? Christian James White debates Unitarian Anthony Buzzard
  6. 06 March 2010 | Which is more trustworthy – The Bible or Koran? Christian James White debate Muslim Adnan Rashid
  7. 08 August 2009 | Debating doctrine: Hell – Conditional immortality vs. Eternal conscious torment – James White debates Roger and Faith Forster
  8. 01 August 2009 | Debating doctrine: Predestination – James White debates Roger and Faith Forster
  9. 15 November 2008 | Does the Trinity lead to polytheism? James White of Alpha and Omega ministries debates Abdullah Al Andalusi

(here is the link)

I understand that there will be a new episode with Dr. White on February 9, 2013.


%d bloggers like this: