I’d be interested in how James White answers the questions that we’ve all discussed on this forum dozens of times. How does he justify sola scriptura, when it is so easy to show that it is the tradition you use to interpret scripture that dictates how you understand it? How does he justify eternal security when it is so obvious that sin does indeed matter?
Is he that great of a debater that he can make the truth seem to be false and the false seem to be true?
Consider this: Numerous published and readily available books on the topic. Three dozen moderated, public debates with the leading Roman Catholic apologists. A twice weekly webcast with a toll-free phone number. And….Google! If someone wanted to know, would it be all that difficult to know? Could anyone have made it plainer? It is amazing to read this kind of thing.
By the way, I notice Ignatius has been challenged to back up his claim about edited debates. We will see if the Roman Catholics insist he provide his evidence. He will have to admit his error, just as MarcoPolo had to. Most likely the topic will just fade into silence, and Ignatius will be allowed his libel. But, of course, he knows he has lied–but, if it is in the service of Mother Church, does it matter?
