From NO Training to Over 180 DEBATES?? | Insights & Tips with James White

Who is, in your estimation, the most formidable opponent that you have faced off on stage?

I want to go into a debate, and if the other guy doesn't show up, I can give his presentation as well as he could have given it anyways.

If you could go back and talk to this young man, what would you say to him? If I were to want to win debates today,

I wouldn't debate the way I debate. I would go for the emotions. This is an art. It's not science.

Like, to be able to figure out what to say and what not to say, what to pull out in terms of a brief. It's like rock and roll.

For me, cross -examination is where the debate takes place. Let's talk about your debate with Trent Horn. And on Thursday in March, I debate

Leighton Flowers. Oh my gosh. I'm going to debate on John Six. What he's going to be debating about is yet to be determined.

Dr. James White, thank you so much for joining me today. Just James. We don't need all the long title stuff.

Well, I'm trying to do the Joe Ventilacion, you know, Dr. White. Let me ask you a question,

Dr. White. Have you ever been in a situation like that? I mean, you couldn't see what

I could see. I mean, there's five guys. They've got three rows of books.

And evidently in the Philippines, that means you're right. You know? And they keep looking over at me and I'm sitting here all alone with a notepad and a

Bible. And wow, that was... I've done 182 moderated public debates and that was definitely one of them.

That was definitely one of them, yeah. No, I'm sure we're going to actually circle back around and talk about that.

So I... Yeah. Anyway, I've been reviewing debates for the last couple of years on this

YouTube channel called Wise Disciple, and you are by far one of the best debaters, if not the best that I've ever seen.

And it's not just me saying it. My viewers are very much in agreement on this. Even some of our Catholic viewers, folks who are not

Reformed, they agree as well. So I'm very excited to get into the issue of debate with you.

So maybe we can start here. You can just tell us about how you got started in debate. Did you do any debating in school or did that come later on?

The funny thing is, I went to a brand new high school. I was the first four -year graduating class of that high school.

So it was very small and we had nothing. There was an honors class that I was a part of at one point, but there was no debate team.

There was no debate class. I went to Grand Canyon College when it was still much, much smaller.

Now it's Grand Canyon University. It's huge. But back then it was about the same size as my high school and there really wasn't anything there.

Honestly, the first indication that that might be something that I would have any facility in at all came in my senior year.

I was class valedictorian. I got a full -ride scholarship to Grand Canyon.

I never got a B, blah, blah, blah. I was that guy. Never got a demerit. Never late to class. Any of that stuff. I'm that man.

And senior year, I'm bored. Remember being a senior and you're tired of this, you're ready to move on.

In the government class, which I had to take, they offered an extra credit thing, the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now, as you know, attorneys, law, there's a lot of parallels to debate.

I wasn't interested. I didn't need extra credit. I already had 112 % of the points. I didn't need any of that.

But I'm sitting there looking and I look at the defense. The next nine people on the honor roll are all on the defense and the prosecution is nobody.

I'm bored and I'm like, you know, this could be fun.

I signed up for the prosecution and I lived that subject for a couple of months.

I'd wake up in the middle of the night and jump out of bed and make a note. I went out to ASU. I got the

Warren Commission report. I mean, I lived it. And I got 11 to 1 for conviction.

And the one holdout was a girlfriend of somebody on the defense team. We didn't get to really choose the jury very well, if you know what

I mean. But afterwards, I had stoners. You've got to picture this. I had potheads coming up to me at school after, because they had attended it to get extra points.

After that trial going, hey, dude, man, I got busted over the weekend. Could you like, you know, help me out?

It was sort of an indication of what was to come. But no, honestly, the debates,

I suppose, you know, when you go out to the Easter pageant in the LDS church and you're surrounded by 12 more missionaries and you're answering each one of those questions and you're trying to stay focused on getting a certain message out and stuff like that,

I suppose that has some parallels. But honestly, my introduction to debate outside of the

Bonson -Stein debate or something like that was listening to Jerry Matitix, who was

John Gerstner's favorite student, who was the first ordained PCA minister to convert to Roman Catholicism.

And someone started sending me tapes. These are called cassette tapes. They're now in museums, but cassette tapes of Jerry Matitix and a guy named

Scott Hahn, Dr. Scott Hahn today, debating evangelical pastors, mainly

Calvary Chapel guys. And this was when I was writing my first couple of books, which everybody expected to be on Mormonism.

That was my third book. But my first two were actually The Fatal Flaw and Answers to Catholic Claims. And we sent those to Catholic Answers.

Jerry Matitix worked for Catholic Answers at the time. And within a week, Jerry was on the phone challenging us to debate, which took place,

I believe it was August 16th, 1990, in Long Beach, California.

And it was a large Roman Catholic church. Like I said,

I had no training, but I had been listening. I knew what to expect from Jerry. And it started from there.

He and I then did some debates just a few months later in Arizona. That led to debates with Mitch Pacwa in San Diego.

And it just started snowballing from there. And so no, I did not have...

You know what, honestly, what was the best training I had at that point in my life was starting my sophomore year.

I had a job. I was a radio announcer. And so, I mean, we're talking turntables, 33

RPM records, UPI news, top of the hour.

And I've told people many times that has been one of the greatest advantages I've had in debate is that I know how to use a clock.

And so if you've listened to a lot of my debates, you know, I finished my statement in my allotted time and can make my point to the audience.

And I don't look like I'm rushed and I'm having to, well, I'll get to that later on, blah, blah, blah, blah. I don't know what it is about everybody else, but they don't know how to do that.

And so when I was a radio announcer, I had to back time records. So they're finishing right as I'm giving the...

This is KWO FM 106 .3, home of the great entertainers, the time, the tone, 7pm, here's UPI World News.

And bing, there's the tone and you're done. So I have to do that. And that has been, clock control has been really, really helpful.

It honestly has been. So there was sort of that and no fear of microphones. You know, when you sit in front of a microphone for 36 hours a week, you can't be nervous about it and what you're saying and what people are going to hear you saying, stuff like that.

So that was part of it too. Yeah, that's amazing that you had no formal training in school or anything like that.

And it almost sounds like trial by fire. Just jump right in. It was, except for one thing.

In about three years in, and this was a God thing, big time. I did two debates, two nights in a row when the

Pope visited Denver in 1993 for World Youth Day. I debated Jerry again, I debated Jerry 13 times now.

We had tried to get Carl Keating and Patrick Madrid of Catholic Answers to debate. They told us they weren't going to do a debate.

And then once I scheduled with Jerry, they scheduled a debate. And I don't know if you've ever heard it. If you want torture, if you want to beat your head against the wall,

I can send you the tape of the debate they did because it was bad. But I debated

Jerry for seven and a half hours over two nights on the papacy. The first night was at Denver Seminary, and that was on the

New Testament evidence. After the debate, a man came up to me, and you know what? I'll never meet him until heaven,

I'm sure. But a man came up to me, and he didn't condescendingly speak to me, he didn't put his arm around me, do this type of thing.

He just basically said, I really appreciate what you're doing, you're doing a good job, but let me make a suggestion.

You've got to bring your audience along with you. It doesn't matter how much good information you get out if you're not bringing them along with you.

You need to make sure you're communicating to them. Don't go so fast that you lose them, and they're not following what you're saying.

And I could have responded to that negatively. I could have been, you know, my ego or something like that. I listened to him, and I immediately made changes in how

I was doing things, and I'm like, you know what? I do need to do that. And right around the same time,

I learned the value of cross -examination. It's not like somebody walked up and said, this is the value of cross -examination.

But I started to realize that those questions that we were allowed to ask is really where the debate takes place.

That's where it happens. That's where the two sides are brought together, and you can test the other side for consistency.

And other than two attorneys that I've debated, every other attorney

I've ever debated stunk at cross -examination. I mean, like they had never even heard of it before.

And so, for me, cross -examination is where the debate takes place.

Because you can go watch some other guy's presentations on his website, listen to my presentations on my website, you don't need to have a debate.

What's the value of the debate? The debate is when the two sides have to interact with one another in a meaningful fashion.

And that's the best way in the world to demonstrate inconsistencies of position. I'm so glad to hear you say that, because I've been saying that for years now.

That cross -examination is where the magic happens. And you find out really quickly whether you can shine or whether you're going to suck very badly in cross -exam, because that's where you draw a true clash.

And I completely agree. So I want to stay here, but then I also want to circle back around really quickly.

You shared a photo with me. Just take a look at it. Maybe you can tell us who this is.

Who is this young man? Well, okay. Oh, well, look at the hair. For everybody's hair. I mean, is this not 1981?

Oh my goodness. And look at what's on the table.

That is a beautiful 30 -06 I bought for my dad, actually, for Father's Day back in those days.

And nobody said a word about my walking into that school with a fully functional 30 -06 in my hand.

That was 1981. That gives you an idea. But yes, that's me and Debbie Tupper's looking up at me over there.

I remember some of these folks anyways. And now the funny thing was, I had my witnesses prepared.

I ran their Warren Commission report testimonies. I had a bound copy for them.

A bound copy for me. I mean, that's what I mean when I say I got into it.

But yeah, that's me in a really nice brown corduroy suit.

This is at 142 pounds, baby.

Wow. Look at that. Man, I'll tell you. Oh, isn't that great?

Isn't that great? Man. What is going on in your mind at this moment? Young James White.

What's going on? I'm hoping that all my witnesses will remember their testimony, basically.

I can't be worried about the fact that the people in the jury—okay, one of those guys, the second guy from the left in the second row was one of the first people

I even got to know when I moved to Arizona. So maybe that was an unfair part on my side. But I'm thinking, will

Mike Nixon remember what he's supposed to remember? And the teacher sitting there, who's the judge, he was the head of the honors thing.

And so that's how all that got put together. But different world back then, man.

I can tell you. Different world. It really, really was. Yeah. At that point. We even had the

Zapruder film. In slow motion on a TV for that trial. I mean, that's not too bad.

That's not too bad. No, that's excellent. I feel an affinity for your teacher. So I taught debate at a school in Vegas for a number of years, and at the culmination of the year,

I would do a mock murder trial. And so we would do something extremely similar, and all the students would get involved.

So I think your teacher's on to something there. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. At this point though, does young James White have an inkling of what

God is going to do like through you in your life? By that, that was senior year.

Up to that point, up until between my sophomore and junior year in high school,

I wanted to go to the Air Force Academy. That's why I had all straight

A's, because my I's weren't good. So I would need to have the best grades possible and stuff like that.

And then between my sophomore and junior year, the Lord really got a hold of me. At that point in time,

I wasn't sure what kind of ministry it was going to be. When I actually went to Grand Canyon, I was thinking about medical missionary work or something like that, because I was a double major Bible and biology.

And then I got married between my freshman and sophomore years in high school.

I was actually already dating my future wife when that picture was taken, I think.

And two more missionaries showed up at my sister -in -law's door about six weeks after Kelly and I got married.

Now, my wife's an identical twin. So they're talking to her identical twin, Shelly. And Shelly asks me to come over to talk to these two more missionaries,

Elders Reed and Reese. And we met for about three hours on a Monday and three hours on the following Thursday.

I read two or three books on Mormonism in between. And I was deeply convicted, even though I was a preacher's kid, that I did not know enough about my faith to make it clear to them.

And I certainly did not know enough about their faith to overcome the obvious language barrier that existed between us.

And that's what started what became Alpha and Omega Ministries, was that study that I began at that point in time.

We're talking about how everything got started for you, you know, and I'm sure there was an element of this where you couldn't have had any idea like where you would be right now in terms of ministry, in terms of experience and success.

But you know, like if you could go back and talk to this young man, what would you say to him?

Well, you know, I think it's wise that actually now that I look at the date,

Kelly and I started dating about two months after that. So I want to be very accurate in my terminology here.

I've said many times, I'm glad God doesn't let us know what's coming, because I think it would have been a real distraction in Bible college or seminary to know that in a number of decades,

I'd be standing in front of the Qibla in the Abu Bakr Siddiq Mosque in Erasmus, South Africa, with Muslims sitting on the floor, five feet in front of me, all through this building, presenting the gospel and my unworthiness of the righteousness of Christ and telling them things they've never heard in their lives.

As I stand where the imam had led the prayers only a half hour earlier. And you just don't forget, you don't forget things like that.

And I think it would have been a distraction. I think it would have been, you know, you have to take things slowly.

You have to do things step by step. And one of the things I was really thankful for through my ministry is

I've never tried to be the Bible Answer Man. I've been on the Bible Answer Man a lot of times back in the olden days, but I never felt that that was really wise.

No one has the breadth of knowledge to be able to do all of that kind of stuff. And so we refuse to go into certain areas of research and ministry simply because I can't do all of that.

I want to do what I do well and then let the

Lord expand that out over time. So we started with Mormonism and then people started coming to a class and they started asking questions about Jehovah's Witnesses.

And so I start getting Jehovah's Witness material. And by the way, no one ever told me, no one ever told me, get the original sources, get their books, understand how they think, understand how they would express their own positions.

I had no one to tell me that. But once I read pretty much every book at the Christian bookstore on Mormonism, I'm like, you know, there are these books

I keep seeing referenced over and over again, like called the Journal of Discourses, 26 volumes, the early sermons of the church,

Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Joseph Feeling Smith, Articles of Faith by James Talmadge.

And so I start becoming a regular at the LDS bookstore and being a radio announcer, especially while the

California Angels were playing, which we carried from 7 .10 till the end of the baseball game.

Once every half hour, I had to go click and that's it. Yeah, yeah.

A lot of time to be doing your schoolwork. And then for me, studying Mormonism from the original sources.

And one of the greatest advantages I've had in debates is I want to go into a debate.

And if the other guy doesn't show up, I can give his presentation as well as he could have given it anyways.

That's what I want. I can't always do that, but it's a huge advantage.

If you want to see if you want to see this played out big time. 2001 debate,

Long Island with Dr. Peter Stravinskas. This guy is a double Ph .D. from Ivy League schools, editor of the

Catholic Answer. And he starts off a presentation debating a reformed person like me talking about his conversations with Jimmy Swaggart.

OK, that's not exactly where I'm coming from. You know what I mean? He has no idea, no idea whatsoever what

I actually believe. And so halfway through, he's pulling on his collar. He wants out of there so bad.

It's a clear indication of what happens when one person comes in. And doesn't care a whit what the other person believes.

Think that they have it all figured out. I had read everything he had ever written on the subject of purgatory going into that debate.

That's what you want to be able to do if you have the time to do it, obviously. But yeah. It's just again,

I'll say this another like one more time. It's just amazing that without a mentor, without, you know, somebody or formal training at all that you have been able to become so accomplished.

And I guess maybe we should stay on this question of process because I'm curious.

And I know a lot of the viewers are curious about this. What does your debate prep look like?

So from the moment that you agree to a debate, what does that look like for you? How long do you give yourself for prep?

And what do you do for prep? Well, obviously, that's going to depend on lots of different situations.

When I debated people like Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan. I mean,

Crossan has an IQ so high up there. It's unbelievable. Or someone who has a really unique view, like James Price.

I spent months. I read everything that Bart Ehrman wrote. I listened to all of his classes.

I read his doctoral dissertation, which was on the rise of the proto -Alexandrian text type, sorry, in the early church.

I immersed myself in where these people are coming from because I take it very, very serious.

I'm trying to create a body of work that's going to be useful after I'm moldering in the grave.

And the only way to do that is not do what we're... COVID created a cottage industry debating.

But people sitting in their T -shirts in the basement with a fan going on the ceiling, and they took this debate two days ago, is not what

I'm talking about when I talk about serious debate that's going to have long -term use. And so for guys like that, for those big type of debates with leading scholars, three, six months of intense work is what

I would do. Now, I'll be honest with the audience right now. I'm not sure what I've done in scheduling what

I have coming up in February and March. I'm going on a road trip. Of course, I go in this unit.

I'm going to Dallas to be on Allie Beth Stuckey's program, talking to a

Catholic apologist, don't know who yet. I drive from Dallas to Houston. In Houston, I will be debating

Trent Horn two nights in a row, one on Sola Scriptura, one on Purgatory. Now, Trent Horn's the best that Catholic Answers has.

We've debated twice in the past. He's very, very good. Then I go to Tullahoma, Tennessee.

I debate a fellow on particular redemption as a part of a Calvinism conference, which

I'm also speaking at and preaching at. Then I go from there to Grace Bible Theological Seminary, where I'm Professor of Church History and Apologetics.

I teach a class on Baptist history, which I'm not prepared for yet. Then I go from there back to Houston.

On Thursday in March, I debate Leighton Flowers on John 6.

Well, I'm going to debate on John 6. What he's going to be debating about is yet to determine. He's gotten so much flack about that that I'm hoping it'll actually be on John chapter 6.

Then I've got one night off, and then I debate Dale Tuggy, Dr. Dale Tuggy, the leading Unitarian in the

United States right now on Is Jesus Yahweh? Five major debates, one road trip, not including the

Alley Best Duckies show. I'm really questioning my wisdom right now because just the amount of preparation.

I'm one of four pastors of a rapidly growing church. I do the dividing line regularly.

I did one show today, but we had to record it. I'll be honest.

I'm not sure that I will be as prepared as I would like to be. I have asked for the first time.

I don't normally ask for people to help me prepare for a debate because I figure if I'm sitting in the debate,

I've got to know this material. It can't be something that somebody gave me a cheat sheet on. I need to have gotten this information myself.

This time, I've actually asked for a bunch of other people, please help me because I just have so much to try to prepare for in this one trip.

Of course, what if I get sick? I don't know, but that's what's coming up, and I hope it goes well.

I'm certainly praying toward that end. I even said on the dividing line yesterday,

I need to start focusing what I'm talking about on the dividing line onto those particular subjects instead of all the stuff that's out there that is very, very distracting because I want to really be focused.

Those subjects are so far apart from one another that it's going to be super, super challenging.

If they're all related subjects, okay, fine. But Purgatory, John VI, Unitarianism, how do you even tie those types of things together?

You're not going to be able to. Yeah, it's going to be a challenge. It's going to be a challenge. Well, we're rooting for you.

That's quite a heavy lift. I think we're connecting to the next question that I had for you.

Let me just go ahead and ask it. Our country was formed through rigorous debate.

Many of our Founding Fathers were excellent debaters. I would say it's through good debate that we wrestle with ideas and draw good conclusions as individuals and a society overall.

And then, of course, in terms of theology and apologetics, debate is extremely beneficial. But as each year goes by, it seems like we're moving further and further away from the principles of good communication.

Actually, it seems like we're devolving. Well, good thought. Of just good thinking. Right. Yeah.

I mean, let's be honest. If I were to want to win debates today in an improper way,

I wouldn't debate the way I debate. I would go for the emotions because that's how you win debates today.

But I can't do that. I have a higher standard. So you're about to say what

I am dealing with all the time. That is the fact that we live in a society where we have now confused thought with feeling and equated the two.

You have to say hard things in a debate. You have to say the other side's wrong. And when you live in a society where you're not allowed to say anybody's wrong about anything without offending someone, yeah,

I'm glad. Let's put it this way. I'm glad I'm a Christian debater because then I can trust that the

Spirit of God will use his truth in the hearts and lives of the people he wants to use it that way.

Because if I didn't have that, I don't know that I would have any commitment whatsoever to consistency, truthfulness, stuff like that, because I'd just be doing what advertisers do.

Play to the emotions. Don't worry about the facts. Well, maybe we're already starting to answer this a little bit.

But to you, what is the value of debate? Why do you continue to participate in these debates?

Well, it's similar to writing books. I've written more than 20 books. And whenever anybody starts writing a book, like when

John Cooper, he's just put a new book out, Frontman for Skillet, I've helped him focus his thinking and stuff on both of the books that he's written now.

And I've told John, I said, you've got to decide who is my audience? Who am I trying to communicate to?

And when I'm in a debate, I realize that of the whole spectrum, you have a whole bunch of people on their side that they're not going to hear a word you have to say.

You could be speaking Swahili. It won't make any difference to them. They're not going to listen to you. Their side has already won in their mind.

And I've got a whole group of people like that on my side, too. OK, so there's nothing I can do about that.

And then the third in the middle, you've got the people on their side that are willing to listen somewhat.

And you might get them on a journey. And there's people on my side that are maybe confused about some things.

They need to be firmed up in their faith. And then you got the people that swath right in the middle that really want to know what in the world the truth about this particular issue is.

And so you have to make a decision where you're going to focus. This especially becomes the case because, as you know, you can pretty much plan out the beginning of the debate.

If you know the other side's position, you can pretty much know what you're going to need to be rebutting.

But once you get into the cross -ex and then the final portions of the statements, you have to be ready to go with what has happened in the debate itself.

And that includes not only reading your opponent, but it also includes reading the audience. And so you have to be making decisions.

What do I need to emphasize? What's most important here? Every debater, and this is where a lot of scholars, this is why a lot of scholars should never debate.

I met with an Erasmus scholar in Berlin once for dinner. And he was just a walking encyclopedia.

But every time you asked him a question, he literally sat there for about 30 seconds, literally 30 seconds.

People don't realize how long 30 seconds is. Literally would stare at you for 30 seconds before he would then give you a publishable answer that's like from one of these

AI bots, but is actually real. But you don't have 30 seconds in a debate to be formulating the perfect answer.

If there's almost any delay at all, people are figuring, oh, gotcha on that one.

And so the mental process of listening to the other side, taking accurate notes, and as you're taking accurate notes and to answer the inevitable question, yes,

I'm using a remarkable tablet these days. As you're taking those notes, you have these bullet points.

And one of the things you've got to do while still listening is prioritize those points. And you're not going to get to all of them because I suppose if debates were really the way they used to be, you know how long the debate was in Leipzig when

Luther took on Eck, that was all morning, take a break for lunch, all afternoon, go out and drink too much

German beer in the evening. And that was a football trip for the university students back then.

But it was hours long. And Luther even had time to go to the library to look stuff up during lunch hour.

That's not how we do debates anymore. And so since each time frame gets shorter and shorter, you have to be going in light of my goals, how am

I going to prioritize these points that I've heard him make and that I need to respond to?

And the fact is there's some points you're not going to be able to respond to. That's just the nature of the beast.

And doing that on the fly, I think, is one of the hardest things for people to do when they get into debate.

That's something I can tell people they need to do it, but it's not really something that everyone is conditioned to be able to do, both hear, write, prioritize, all at the same time.

For a lot of folks, that's just like, yeah, I can't go there. Hey, real quick. I'm so glad that you're watching, but did you know that 68 % of you that watch are not subscribed to the channel?

Can you believe that? That blew my mind when I saw that. That's amazing. Would you please help me get this video out to more people by liking and subscribing to the channel?

I really do appreciate it. I'm so grateful that you bring this up. I've interviewed other debaters in the past.

You're the only one that's brought this up, and I'm really grateful because I think there should be a spotlight on this.

I don't even know how to categorize it, but the economics of language in debate is key.

When I would try to teach my students, it was almost like, this is an art. It's not science.

To be able to figure out what to say and what not to say, what to pull out in terms of a brief, and what not to, what to cut, it's really,

I don't know. It's like music. It's like rock and roll. It is.

It is. I don't think anyone should ever feel bad if they are not skilled in that particular capacity or that particular area.

Like I said, there are scholars so far beyond me in intellect and knowledge and everything else, but they should never debate because they'll look silly when they're doing it because they can't think along those lines and be able to rapidly put information into a usable form.

But that is the key to being a successful debater. When I mean successful,

I mean communicating both to your side, so your side feels like they have been adequately represented.

They're like, yeah, well, I couldn't have put it that way. That's good. And then the other side has to go, well, he didn't misrepresent us anyways, and I'm not really sure what to do with what he said about what we believe, but you've communicated.

That's success for me. And not everyone

I debate allows for that success to happen. It takes two people to make a good debate.

And I can name names of people who are very good at making the debate pretty much a waste of time for everybody.

There are certain ways you can do that. And then there are other people that have good integrity, and it makes for great debates because they stay focused.

Every debate I did with Mitch Packwood, Father Mitchell Packwood, Dr. Mitchell Packwood, speaks 12 languages, for crying out loud.

We did five debates, and I say to everybody on Roman Catholicism, those are the best debates to listen to, not because they're the most exciting.

There's some nice humor in it. You can tell we like each other. That helps. But because he doesn't play games, and he doesn't pull punches, and he gives honest answers, and therefore you really get to the heart of the issue.

But I can name all sorts of other debaters. Their ability is to obfuscate, not to clarify.

And that's true in all of the areas. So my debate with Abdullah Kunda at University of New South Wales in 2011 in Australia on Can God Become Man is still my favorite

Muslim debate because Abdullah, unlike almost all the rest of my Muslim opponents,

Abdullah read my book on the Trinity and therefore tried to create an argument from the Muslim side that would be understandable to Christians.

And you just don't understand how unusual that is. And it made for,

I thought, just the best discussion on that subject that I've had, and that was 12 years ago.

And so a lot of it does depend on the other person. And if someone wants to sink a debate, they can do it.

But there's only so much you can do from your side to make the debate work. Let's talk about your debate with Trent Horne.

And it was over whether a Christian can lose their salvation. I actually spoke with Horne about that debate, and if I remember this right, he likened it to Rocky fighting

Apollo Creed. So what's your take on that debate and on Horne as a debater?

Well, that's two different issues. The topic is not one that I like to debate because the reality is that particular topic is based on the only way to get to, from a reform perspective, to get to that conclusion is four or five things that come before it, which he and I wouldn't agree on, but which weren't a part of the debate.

And when you only have 20 minutes. So it's not one of my favorite topics to do, first of all.

Trent is really sharp. But I'm not sure if you're familiar with what's been happening recently, because like I said,

I'm debating him on Sola Scriptura. Yeah. In February, and he's done some debates with Gavin Ortland on this subject.

And what I'm finding fascinating, I've been, okay, my first debate with Roman Catholic was 1990.

Okay. That was 33 years ago. That was under John Paul II, not

Francis. There's been a lot of evolution and a lot of change and Francis is changing everything.

And so things are different now. And I'm really surprised because Trent is making arguments regarding the nature of Scripture.

The Catholic answers would not have touched 20 years ago, would not have come near 20 years ago, really denying that Scripture is ontologically unique over against tradition.

They've always subsumed Scripture to tradition. But up until recently, up until the past couple of years, every

Roman Catholic apologist I've debated, Mitch Pacwa, all of them would have admitted

Scripture is ontologically unique. It is the only thing that is theanoustos, only thing that is God -breathed.

Trent is sort of going the progressive route on this. And I'll be honest with you.

You may have noticed, liberals don't do debates because they have nothing to debate. There's no objective truth to be worried about.

And so to start borrowing from that realm, I think in the long run is going to be extremely damaging to him and to Catholic apologetics if they go that direction.

So I'm going to be interested to see where that goes because he's been citing a study from a guy who says theanoustos does not mean

God -breathed, it means giving life. And if that comes up in our debate, there's a lot of background material there that Trent, I do not believe, has the training to be able to deal with.

But I do. I've taught Greek. I've taught Greek exegesis. I've used the TLG CD -ROM in my research for doctoral work.

And he has not. And so if that's where it goes, it's going to have to go there. So I don't know exactly how it's going to happen.

It'll be unique anyways. It'll be different because here's a guy. Now, I'm defending

Solus Scriptura, but he's a Roman Catholic. He has to deal with the fact that his pope has changed the

Roman Catholic Church's teaching on capital punishment and is in the process of setting the mechanisms in motion to make major moral and ethical changes in the teaching of the

Roman Catholic Church. He's got to deal with that. And I'm not the one saying that. Roman Catholics are the ones saying that.

Bishops, archbishops are the ones saying that. So it's a tough time to be in his shoes.

And he can't duck that. He can't say, oh, we can't worry about that. No, you're presenting your own side.

You're presenting a position here, too. And I can use that as an illustration of what happens when you deny

Solus Scriptura is you end up in the spot that you're in right now. So it'll be an interesting evening.

It'll be an interesting evening. The next night's purgatory. And that might end up proving to be a more interesting evening, because when

I debated Gerry Mattox at Boston College in 93, we did the

Apocrypha and Justification by Faith. And both Gerry and I sort of agreed we hoped we'd be heard over the snoring in the

Apocrypha. It ended up being far more interesting than the

Justification debate, because what it ended up boiling down to was issues of authority. And I'm wondering if the purgatory debate may not surprise us as well.

Who is probably, in your estimation, the most formidable opponent that you have faced off on stage?

Well, you see, how do you define formidable? You can define formidable in the sense of ability to make the debate hard and make it hard for you to really make your points.

You can make it as far as their intellectual capacity and the breadth of their knowledge. And then it's going to be what

Muslim debater, what Catholic debater, what Mormon debater, what atheist debater, because it's all in different areas.

So John Dominic Crossan is undoubtedly probably, he's the most intelligent man.

I'd say he has the highest IQ of anyone that I have taken on. Now, my advantage in debating

Dom, and by the way, we took him on a cruise afterwards. We had a debate on the boat on Resurrection.

And I told him, you know, you are my favorite heretic. And so he just sort of adopted that and went, OK, that's cool.

He's a wonderfully nice little Irishman. He really, really is. But it's like he had never met someone like me.

It's like meeting me was like meeting someone from another planet because he had spent the entire decade of the 60s studying the

Gospels in a cell in a monastery. So he had never had any interaction with someone like myself.

And the first time we met, he started telling me a story. I finished his story because I read his autobiography.

And he just can't believe that someone who has my beliefs would take the time to know his story, to have read his own autobiography and to know his position so well that he was just blown away by that.

And it made for a great debate as a result. In the same way, this is a really interesting story.

I hope I'm not taking up too much of your time here. But and I'm not in a hurry. So you don't worry about cutting off right at the top of the hour.

I learned something and I'm not I'm not always completely consistent in applying this.

But especially with my Muslim debates, because I've now done more Muslim debates than any other group, just barely more than Roman Catholicism.

I debated Adnan Rashid. I don't know if you've seen any of my debates with Adnan. But Adnan Rashid is a big, tall

Pakistani guy. And the first time he and I debated in London, it was it was a it was a street brawl.

Um, he is a well -known veteran at Speaker's Corner in London. I know, you know,

Speaker's Corner and they at Speaker's Corner. People just basically learn to yell and scream at each other.

It's a good place to learn how to continue a thought with people with multiple people screaming at you at the same time is basically what

Speaker's Corner is about. And that's all Adnan knew. And that's all Adnan knew about Christians was that they would yell and scream back.

And so the first couple of debates he and I had, there's one of them where we did sort of two debates in one night, one on the transmission of the text, the

New Testament, and then the second one, the transmission of the text of the Quran to compare the two. And he had a bunch of these young guys right down in the front row.

It was at a Christian church. And they're they're doing Takbir on all sorts of stuff like this.

And then I made a really strong point. And they're quiet. And I just look at him and go, what?

I don't get it. I don't get a Takbir. And they did not know what to do with this

Christian. It's looking at them going, come on, guys, let's be consistent. You just did not even know what to do.

So so Adnan and I were doing two debates at Trinity in Dublin.

Have you ever been to Trinity in Dublin? No. Okay. So you've been to the reading room. Oh, you haven't. Oh, okay. I know. The reading room at Trinity in Dublin is one of the seven most amazing things mankind has ever made.

I mean it. Look it up on Google. Look at look at the books to the ceiling and the smell.

Oh my goodness. It is amazing. And so just to get to debate at Trinity College in Dublin is pretty amazing.

We debated one night actually at another place. And then the next night was gonna be at Trinity.

I asked Adnan to meet me for lunch. Finding a place to eat with a

Muslim is not always easy. Looking for halal food and stuff like that. And so we meet at this like Panera Bread stuff, something like that.

And Nate, what I did is I just looked this man in the eye and I said, this is why

I debate. This is why I care about you. This is why I care about the Muslim people.

That had never happened with him before. And he realized that I do what

I do because I really believe it and I actually care about him. And what the

Muslims can't understand about me and the reason they don't know what to do with me is I accurately represent their position.

I will not compromise on mine and I care about them. And they don't know what to do in that situation.

The debate that night at Trinity College, completely different than the night before.

And if you look at any of the debates that Adnan and I have done since then, they're completely different than the ones we did.

I think we did three before. I think we've done three since then. It just comparing them would be an interesting study because all of a sudden, now you have a relationship.

And so like he and I debated at an evangelical church in London a number of years ago. And I could, he would start sort of getting a little

Adnan -ish, which means he's getting a little, you know. And I just sort of look over at him and I go,

Adnan. And he'd get this smile on his face and he sort of looked at, I know.

It changed everything. We met for lunch in London.

I actually found a Mexican place in London that's semi -decent. If you ever go to London, let me know.

I'll tell you where it is. It's actually a chain and it's really edible stuff. We're sitting in the basement of this place.

And I'm sure that British intelligence is watching all of this. And we're talking about some pretty heavy stuff down there.

I'm sort of wondering who's sitting around us, you know, because we're talking about Jihad and we're talking about all sorts of stuff like this.

And when we walked out, I'm Scottish, I'm not a hugger. And this guy is six foot three.

But we hugged in public out there at Trafalgar Square. I could see Nelson's thing right over there.

I hugged this guy and he hugged me right back. Changes everything. Changes everything.

Now I can't always do that in every debate. Obviously, this is not a possibility. But when a relationship exists, and I'm talking here pretty much as a

Christian debater now. When a relationship exists, it can change everything. It really can.

Yeah, that's so good. I have a feeling that that is connected to a question that is coming up from some of the

Patreon members there. So I'm going to save that because I think your point is well taken. That ultimately, there is a lot that can be traveled, a distance that can be traveled to change somebody's mind if they just recognize that first and foremost, we love them.

And this is Paul, 1 Corinthians 13, right? You can be the smartest debater on stage, but if you have not love, you're nothing.

So Paul didn't actually say that. That's my paraphrase. But let me ask you this, because it sounds like you're not averse to craziness on stage.

What is the craziest debate? I think I know what your answer is. But what is the craziest debate that you've ever participated in?

Yeah, the ventilation one is right up there toward the top. I had seen some debates he had done.

So it wasn't like I was completely unprepared for the three rows of tables with books on them with guys running around who are literally talking while I'm trying to speak.

I don't know if you recall, I stopped once and actually asked them to be quiet. It was just really annoying.

So it wasn't that I was completely blown away by that. But I just never been in a context like that.

And then, of course, his behavior was just amazing. But aside from that,

I have debated some people that probably in hindsight, we shouldn't have done it.

They were what was available. So there's this guy named Nader Ahmed, who's a

Muslim. And I debated him one night and the

Muslims were yelling at him by the end of the debate. The Muslims were embarrassed by the end of the debate.

And to be honest with you, no matter what the topic is, if it goes that poorly to where the other side is walking out or they're abusing their debater or whatever else it might be, you sort of feel sorry for the guy.

And you also sort of feel like, man, we didn't really show respect for this topic by handling it the way that it ended up being handled tonight.

And so sometimes you walk away going, well, Lord, use it for whatever you want to use it for.

You know, I couldn't really necessarily foresee that it was going to go quite that way.

But, you know, there's been some interesting audience participation a few times. Some, well, did you see the

Dan Barker debate where he, the second debate we did, where he objected to the moderator that I was quoting his books?

No, no, I was. Do you know who Dan Barker is? The head of Freedom for Religion Foundation.

Yeah. He and I had gone back and forth. In fact, I debated him on the Tom Likashow. That's not what

I'm formal debate, but I was on the Tom Likashow with him when I was probably 23, maybe.

I mean, he was one of the first people. He's a brilliant guy, concert pianist, writes music, very, very proud of his intellect.

But, quote unquote, former Christian. And we did a debate on the existence of Jesus.

And so he makes his opening statement. And then I start making my opening statement. And I'm quoting from books he is selling in the foyer of the church.

But he objects to my quoting those books because he didn't actually read them in his opening statement.

And the poor moderator guy, all he wanted to do is keep time.

He didn't want to be dealing with something like this. But yeah, I call it the don't quote me, bro.

Instead of don't tase me, bro, it's the don't quote me, bro debate. Yeah, yeah, that one was pretty interesting too.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the guy that wanted you to eat rat poison. Well, OK, it wasn't rat poison.

It was antifreeze. Oh, antifreeze. And so, yes, that one definitely, you need to understand something about that guy.

That guy is brilliant. He designed the Luke hand. He has patents for what's called the

Luke hand. It's a prosthetic hand for, you know, soldiers coming home that can be controlled by your brain as to how hard you squeeze something.

You can feel things. It's called the Luke hand from Star Wars. He designed it. He's brilliant.

And he hates God. Massively so. And so I've done two debates now with Jeff Durbin as my partner.

We did that debate right before COVID. And then COVID shut everything down.

And then last April, finally, we got back to it. And we did a debate with two ethicists up there on whether morality is possible without God.

And I've got to give, let me say something about Jeff. Eli, yourself,

Jeff, you're the next generation. I'm getting old. And I just hope that I have people around me who will tell me that I need to step aside from doing some of the stuff that I do when

I need to do it. I've seen people go too long, and it's not good.

I want to finish well, but I want to know when I'm finished. You guys are the next generation. And Jeff, I just love the guy.

I never thought I'd be co -pastoring the same church with him. That was not ever something that I thought was a possibility.

But the Lord has ways of working things out. You've got to understand something. If you watch, I'm not sure if you've seen the debate with the ethicists.

But if you watch it, keep something in mind. Jeff had just been informed the day before that his mom's lung had collapsed from COVID.

And he and his parents had been estranged. They just would not support his being involved in ministry at all. And so they had not seen each other in years and years.

And so he, in that debate, has just made flight arrangements to try to get out before a blizzard came in.

I got stuck in nine inches of snow up there in Salt Lake City because I drove up. And he did manage to get out.

But he had so much on his mind that he could have mailed that in.

But you watch that debate, and he is absolutely razor sharp.

He is sharp as a tack. I let him do most of the cross -acts for one very physical reason.

He was seated to my right in both debates, actually. And the sound system in that room is getting worse and worse over the years.

And I was struggling to hear the other side. He was physically able to hear them better and hence be able to respond faster than I could.

And he just killed it. I mean, it was wonderful to listen to and to watch.

And then he flies home. And you know what the beautiful part is? He got to lead his mom to Christ before she died.

So it was incredible. When I was younger, there was a guy named...

Do you remember Bob Larson? No, I don't think so. Okay. Back in the 80s,

Bob Larson had a huge radio audience. Mm -hmm. And he'd do cults and isms and stuff.

So I was interested. He started getting weird eventually. But one of the things he would really do is he just super hard presser for raising money and stuff.

And the whole idea was, if you don't support me, there's no one else to do this. And I very thankfully decided right then and there,

I'm never going to take that track. I'm never going to believe that about myself. That's not going to end well.

And it hasn't ended well for him. And so I know that the kingdom...

If I get hit by a semi -tractor trailer, it's not watching where it's going as I'm driving home and my ministry is over.

The kingdom is not done. And there are people to pick up and to continue on.

And I can only hope because I know Jeff listens to pretty much every dividing line. And there's one individual that I have sewn into that will be able to continue that work in the future.

And I know there's many, many more like that that I've talked to over the years. That's why you do what you do. You don't do it for yourself.

You don't do it for your own name or something like that. If you do, it's all going to pass away.

It's never going to have any lasting value to it. Yeah. And so I'm excited to see these young guys like Eli and Jeff just try to be encouragement to them and say, this is how you keep going after many, many years.

Because believe me, when we first started, we had nothing. My wife and I had zero nada.

And you have to go through those times before you can get to the times where there's anybody who has any idea who in the world you are.

Yeah. I hear you. And I really appreciate your heart.

Because what you're talking about is discipleship. Taking the things that you've learned, the things that God has allowed you to experience and go through, and then pour into somebody else and watch them go.

Timothy, in that spirit, I suppose, what is your, I guess, advice for those?

What I'm noticing from my vantage point, James, is there seems to be, I don't want to say a resurgence, but there seems to be a big interest right now in debate.

And maybe that's just anecdotal from my side of things. But I'm seeing more and more people wanting to get into debate, which is not why

I started doing what I was doing. But it's an interesting byproduct of it.

And so for those who are thinking about it, who wanted to get into debate, what is your advice for them?

What should they do? What should they not do? Well, I'm normally rather pastoral at this point.

And normally this question comes up, unlike certain debaters who

I will not name, I spend hours after debates greeting people, talking to people, signing books.

Taking selfies, whatever. Hearing their stories about how the ministry has helped them over, well, our ministry is over 40 years old now.

We started in 83. And so when these young guys come up to me after a debate, that's the question that they'll ask.

And what can I do? And they've just seen something exciting. They didn't see the years and years and years that went into the preparation.

And so I'll be perfectly honest with you. I normally look them in the eye and I say, if there's anything else you can do in obedience to God, do it.

I throw water on them. I just simply throw water on them. Because look, if they're really called, my throwing water on them isn't going to stop them.

Because I want them to understand the feeling.

I remember this one so clearly. We announced a seminar I was going to do on the

New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses. And by the way, the New World Translation is a tough thing to deal with. That's a hard subject.

I had handouts ready. And we had this little conference room in the office complex that we sort of rented from.

We could barely pay it. And it was going to be at 7 o 'clock. And we had announced it and all this stuff. And I go down there and I'm sitting there at 6 .55

and 7 o 'clock and 7 .05. And by about 7 .20, you pick up all the handouts.

And you take them back to your office. And you drive home and say goodnight to your wife and little kids.

And it's a horrible feeling. No one showed up. Does nobody care?

Am I not doing what I'm supposed to be doing? The sacrifices that my wife made, that my kids made.

And then the study that goes into it. When people ask me, what classes did you take that have been most helpful for you?

I always say the same thing. Greek, church history. Two that, and I do not understand this.

But you can confirm this. Vast majority of apologists I know are not literate in the biblical languages.

And I don't know why. I do not know why. But there are a bunch of people out there that are very well known.

They couldn't pick up a Greek New Testament and read it if their life depended on it. And it's been so helpful to me to know both biblical languages.

But then also church history. I mean, good grief. If you want to pervert something, that's the...

Most people don't know the difference between Ignatius Loyola and Ignatius Vandyak. And so you can get away with anything on those subjects.

But people don't see the hours and hours and hours and hours of preparation that went into being able to have the background to have confidence.

When I go into those cross examinations, when you've done 182 debates, you've taught

Greek, you've taught Hebrew, you've taught church history, apologetics, you've been on the Bible Answer Man and all sorts of other stuff, taking phone calls from all sorts of perspectives.

That gives you a foundation to draw from to be able to deal with...

Because what scares most people? I'm going to hear an objection I've never heard before. Well, okay.

Yeah, that can happen. No one can anticipate every objection that could be made.

But the broader and deeper your knowledge base is, the more confidence you're going to have in being able to answer in those types of situations.

And that comes across. An audience can tell when someone really is giving an answer that's drawn from a wide field of knowledge, rather than something from a plastic -covered cheat sheet in front of them that they're just giving a type of response from.

So, yeah, I try to let them know that it requires a lot of preparation, a lot of study, a lot of sacrifice.

And then I tell them what classes they need to be focusing upon and go from there.

Yeah. Yeah, that's great. In a way, it's sort of the pastor answer as well.

And you're a pastor, I was a pastor for a number of years before I started doing this. And so, you know, people will come up to us and say the same thing, man,

I want to be a pastor, I want to preach, I want to do that. And it's almost like, yeah, if you can do anything else, right? Just go do that.

I love that. I like the fire in your bones. Don't even try. It's got to be a fire in your bones.

Well, thanks again, James, for sitting with me. It's just an honor and a pleasure to talk to you. And it's been great.

I've really enjoyed it. Thank you. God bless. Yes, sir. Hey, friends, if you enjoyed this interview, then I encourage you to watch the full unedited version with over 30 minutes of Q &A with James White.

This is over on our Patreon community. You can just click the link in the notes below. You can get access to that plus other exclusive member benefits.