A few weeks ago, James White insists that there is nothing for he and Stephen Wolfe to debate about because they have different backgrounds. White claims that Wolfe can’t read Greek or Hebrew, is not an exegete, is not an apologist, and is instead a political philosopher. So this lack of common fields of expertise is White’s logic behind not debating him. White concludes from this that there isn’t a subject for them to debate and bluffs about not receiving serious debate topic suggestions. As an aside, Stephen Wolfe is rather good at apologetics, specifically interdenominational apologetics, when he tries to be.
James White erroneously claims that Jeff Durbin would be willing to debate Stephen Wolfe on theonomy, even though Durbin reportedly refuses to share a stage with Wolfe. They could have had the debate at the Right Response Conference last month. Instead, Wolfe debated David Reece on theonomy vs natural law, while White claims Wolfe never debates.
In contrast, James White was willing to debate Black sanctification with Corey Mahler in a completely unfruitful debate. This contradiction drew scrutiny that brought White to the table, along with his comments getting called out as a bluff.
On June 4, Stephen Wolfe provided an update:
He proposed that we debate “sacralism.” But it isn’t clear to me what this thing extends to. I know that all “sacralists” want to drown Baptists. But are sabbath and blasphemy laws “sacralism”? Who knows? I can’t affirm or deny when I don’t know a term’s extension.
So I proposed something more precise: whether the state may enforce the First Table. He said, only in the postmil golden age can a magistrate do that. So he thinks it’s a postmill/amill thing, which I think is silly. And he doesn’t want to debate postmill. So, I proposed that the debate be whether it can be enforced prior to the postmill golden age. But I don’t think he wants to debate that. So that’s the update. I’ve been away for a few days. I’ll keep trying I guess.
Eschatology Matters emerged as the moderator but the challenge was a topic.
Talks would eventually break down.
EM recently offered to host a debate between James White and Stephen Wolfe as part of our efforts at broadly-Reformed dialogue, after interest was shown online.
No mutually-agreed topic could be settled. White has since made disparaging comments regarding online formats that are just chasing “exposure,” a snub that is both untrue and truly unfortunate toward a ministry that has previously partnered with his.
After reaching out privately, we are withdrawing our offer and moving on.
James White would apologize for any offense given, claiming it was unintended.
Yesterday I commented on others seeking to platform a debate between myself and Stephen Wolfe. Though my point was that it hasn’t been Wolfe, or myself, seeking such an encounter, it has been taken as a dig at online platforms. That wasn’t my intention, but, obviously, I don’t think anyone contacted me to try to arrange such a debate where the resultant encounter would have been *bad* for their platform, either. I get invitations *regularly* from a wide variety of third-party sources to do debates on all sorts of topics, not just this one. So I apologize for any unintended offense, but I’d also say it would be nice to live in a day where you might, once in a while, be extended sufficient grace to first think of the main context of what was being said. That might still happen in personal interactions, but the atmosphere of online stuff is just so utterly noxious these days it’s horrific.
Analysis
It does not appear that Wolfe is the reason talks broke down. A debate over the government’s jurisdiction to enforce the First Table of law would have been interesting, as James White claims to be a theonomist but would oppose such a notion. Even a debate over the execution of Anabaptists and other seditionists would have been interesting. But for now, it’s not happening.
2 Responses
I guess James White grew up both Roman Catholic and Racist Lutheran since he only debates people with the same background as himself.
Who cares? Should we really concern ourselves over the difference between Wolfe’s personal opinions, shared by no one else, and White’s personal opinions, shared by no one else?