James White vs Dr. William Hamblin 2004 - April

From: James White [NA27@aomin.org]
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 5:51 PM
To: William Hamblin
Subject: Blog Post

Regarding an Internet Debate on Temples with Dr. Hamblin
     A few weeks ago Dr. William Hamblin, associate professor of history at Brigham Young University, declined the invitation offered to him to debate the thesis, “The Building of Temples is Consistent with New Testament Christianity” in a public setting before video cameras. Shortly thereafter a discussion occurred, referenced on this blog, regarding debates, etc. On April 2, 2004, I debated Richard Hopkins on the same subject on the campus of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City (audio and video recordings will be available soon). During the conversation with Dr. Hamblin prior to the Salt Lake debate, I indicated that, after the weekend of debates in Utah (I also debated the issue of homosexual marriage the next evening, also at the University of Utah), I would consider his challenge to “debate” the issue in written form on the Internet. I remind the reader that we have a standing challenge to Dr. Hamblin and to others who have been, or currently are, associated with F.A.R.M.S., to join in the dialogue that has been taking place now for a number of years in Utah. In cooperation with Jason Wallace and Christ Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City, we have now done ten moderated, public debates in the Salt Lake area. Those who have taken the time to either attend (we had one couple drive from Texas for the two debates April 2-3) or to view the debates on video know well that the debates are handled respectfully and properly. All accusations made against the debates that we have heard have come only from those who did not attend or have not actually viewed the debates. Also, please note that I also suggested to Dr. Hamblin that if we are going to invest the time to write our positions in a debate format, we should consider pursuing a publication project with a major publisher. Dr. Hamblin has not shown any interest in following that route, either. Hence, I respond now to the challenge to debate the topic of temples in written form to be posted on the Internet.
                Both Dr. Hamblin and I teach in undergraduate and graduate contexts, he for Brigham Young University, I for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and Columbia Evangelical Seminary. I am currently teaching Systematic Theology II and Development of Patristic Theology, and I’m sure Dr. Hamblin has a busy teaching schedule as well. I do not know of his current publishing schedule, but I know that I have hundreds of pages of publishable material to produce this year, along with at least four more debates, along with teaching during the summer session at the main campus of GGBTS in Mill Valley, CA, and teaching an apologetics class in the Fall as well. Hence, simply due to time constraints, I propose a very controlled, concise exchange on the topic that allows for sufficient time to write our responses without cutting too deeply into class preparation time, etc. Hence, I am proposing the following format and thesis. I am doing so in public, and propose that the debate be posted “in process,” i.e., as it takes place, so that our readers can follow along. We invite Dr. Hamblin to provide a counter-proposal. Once an acceptable format for both sides has been agreed upon, we can proceed with the exchange.

Proposed Thesis: The Building of Temples for Worship and Priesthood Activities is an Essential Element of New Testament Christianity

Proposed Outline:

Opening Statements: Hamblin: 3000 words White: 3000 words
First Cross Examination: Each participant will provide three questions of less than 250 words, to which the respondent will answer in less than 750 words.
First Rebuttal: Hamblin: 1000 words White: 1000 words
Second Cross Examination: Same format as first.
Second Rebuttal: Hamblin: 500 words White: 500 words
Closing Statements: Hamblin: 1500 words White: 1500 words

I propose doing the debate in two-week segments; that is, the opening statements would be posted two weeks from the agreed upon initiation of the debate; cross-examination questions due four days later, with responses due ten days later; first rebuttals due two weeks later; etc.
     The debate would be posted at www.aomin.org and a website of Dr. Hamblin’s choice, concurrently. We hope to hear from Dr. Hamblin regarding his counter-proposal by April 9^th, 2004.

James>>>

From: William Hamblin [William_Hamblin@byu.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 3:55 PM
To: skinny
Subject: [skinny] RE: Blog Post

James,

Thanks for writing. How are you and your family doing? I hope they are all fine.

I should remind you that once again you are attempting to set the time, venue, structure and topic of the debate, without consultation with me. Do you really think this is reasonable? Is there not a less confrontational way to go about this? I suppose not.

I should also remind you that I originally offered to debate you on your etract, “Temples without hands.” You again are apparently refusing to do so. Instead you want to debate about “The Building of Temples for Worship and Priesthood Activities is an Essential Element of New Testament Christianity.”

First, I should note, there are two topics here: Priesthood and Temples. I am willing to debate about temples. I’m not particularly interested in priesthood issues.

Second, the way you phrase your statement is not a debatable issue. There is no proposition in your statement. A debate topic requires a proposition on which one can be in favor or in opposition.

Third, I think there is nothing to debate about “building temples” in “New Testament Christianity.” The Christians did not build temples during the New Testament period. They had neither the means nor opportunity. Unless you want to argue they did, there is nothing to debate on your topic. They did, however, continue to worship at the temple in Jerusalem, have visions of and ascents to the heavenly temple, and prophesied of an eschatological temple.

Topics of interest in NT Temple ideology might thus include:

Continued Christian participation in worship and visions at the Jerusalem Temple
The Christian concept of Temple in Heaven and heavenly vision and ascent to worship there
The biblical views of the eschatological temple.

But, I rather suspect there is no point in going off on another topic until we have resolved the outstanding issues associated with your etract. So, if you want to pick up on our old debate about your etract, I’m willing to go for it. Why don’t you tell me clearly, once and for all, if you will defend your etract or not?

I also have some issues with your proposed format. We can discuss those if we can agree on a topic.

I also have a problem with the fact that you have not agreed to my earlier terms. They are:

We each post the debate on a web site of our choosing. [You seem to have agreed to this one.] Each web site must list the web address of the other.
We each post the entire debate. You do not get to choose which of my materials are included and which are not included. We will post these ground rules at the beginning of the exchange.
Neither of us will change the text of the other.
All that will be included on the web page is a transcript of the debate. No one gets to include editorial comments to which the other person does not have a chance to respond.

Do you agree to these ground rules?

Due to finals and papers at the end of the semester, I can’t engage in any debate until late April.

Sincerely,
Bill

From: James White [NA27@aomin.org]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 4:50 PM
To: William Hamblin
Subject: RE: Blog Post
At 02:55 PM 04/05/2004, you wrote:

[Italics by Hamblin]

James,
Thanks for writing. How are you and your family doing? I hope they are all fine.

I should remind you that once again you are attempting to set the time, venue, structure and topic of the debate, without consultation with me. Do you really think this is reasonable? Is there not a less confrontational way to go about this? I suppose not.

Sir:

Your objection is unreasonable. The article specifically states that this is my preliminary proposal, and that you have the opportunity to respond with a counter-proposal. Please do not seek to obscure the issues with irrelevant ad-hominems such as this. You wanted to do the Internet interaction, I am simply replying as I promised I would. Let's keep this professional, shall we?

The thesis statement is significantly more specific and clear. If you have an alternative thesis statement, please offer it. A tract is not a thesis statement, and I have never seen a written debate based upon a tract, have you?

First, I should note, there are two topics here: Priesthood and Temples. I am willing to debate about temples. I’m not particularly interested in priesthood issues.

I see. Perhaps it is a matter of ignorance on my part, but the priesthood issue and temple worship seem, in LDS theology, to be intimately connected. Every Latter-day Saint with whom I have discussed the issue agreed, but the possibility exists every single one of them was wrong.

Second, the way you phrase your statement is not a debatable issue. There is no proposition in your statement. A debate topic requires a proposition on which one can be in favor or in opposition.

Richard Hopkins managed to understand it. If the LDS Church is the "restoration" of the church, and if temple-building is a constituent part of the worship of the restored priesthood, the statement seems to be quite fitting for a Protestant/LDS debate. Unless, of course, you do not claim your faith is, in fact, the restoration of apostolic Christianity, or that temple building and endowments are merely optional.

Topics of interest in NT Temple ideology might thus include:
1- Continued Christian participation in worship and visions at the Jerusalem Temple

In the worship of the Jews in the temple, specifically, such as animal sacrifices for sin? No one argues prayers and proclamation in the temple courts by Jewish Christians who lived in Jerusalem.

2- The Christian concept of Temple in Heaven and heavenly vision and ascent to worship there

Irrelevant, of course. No one argues to the contrary.

3- The biblical views of the eschatological temple.

Also irrelevant to anything I have said. The particular LDS teaching concerning temples and the claim to restoration of apostolic Christian practices (including priesthood ordinances and the like) was that which prompted the tract to which you replied: and though you expanded your response far beyond the intention of the tract, that was still its purpose and intention. The only reason we seek to dialogue with the LDS people is to present to them the truth about the one true God, His perfect work of salvation, and His true worship. The LDS concept of temples, ordinances, priesthoods, and the like, is part of a complex of beliefs that keeps men in darkness and deception. The only reason for me to engage in a written Internet-based "debate" on the subject is to allow LDS to know what the Bible teaches about these things, and to equip believers so that they, too, can proclaim truth.

Since the thesis proposed IS the basis of the e-tract, obviously, that is why I have invited you to interact in a formal, scholarly fashion. The thesis of the tract is that Christians do not build temples. But a tract does not a thesis for a debate make.

I also have some issues with your proposed format. We can discuss those if we can agree on a topic.

I also have a problem with the fact that you have not agreed to my earlier terms. They are:
1- We each post the debate on a web site of our choosing. [You seem to have agreed to this one.] Each web site must list the web address of the other.

That's fine.

2- We each post the entire debate. You do not get to choose which of my materials are included and which are not included. We will post these ground rules at the beginning of the exchange.

That was included in what was said.

3- Neither of us will change the text of the other.

Obviously.

4- All that will be included on the web page is a transcript of the debate. No one gets to include editorial comments to which the other person does not have a chance to respond.

Fine.

Do you agree to these ground rules?

Outside of posting the URL of the second site, all of that was already contained in what had been suggested.

Due to finals and papers at the end of the semester, I can’t engage in any debate until late April.

Since I will be gone most of May and June, that does not provide any benefit to me, to be sure.

James>>>

From: William Hamblin [William_Hamblin@byu.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 10:02 PM
To: skinny
Subject: [skinny] RE: Blog Post

JAMES

The only reason we seek to dialogue with the LDS people is to present to them the truth about the one true God, His perfect work of salvation, and His true worship. The LDS concept of temples, ordinances, priesthoods, and the like, is part of a complex of beliefs that keeps men in darkness and deception. The only reason for me to engage in a written Internet-based "debate" on the subject is to allow LDS to know what the Bible teaches about these things, and to equip believers so that they, too, can proclaim truth.

BILL

James, you can do this perfectly well without my help. This statement is enormously revealing, and your attitude is precisely the reason I find it utterly pointless to attempt to have any reasonable discussion with you. Your latest email once again degenerates into debating about debating rather than addressing any issue that is significant and interesting. Life is short, and, quite frankly, I've wasted more than enough of mine on you.

From: James White [NA27@aomin.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 12:18 AM
To: William Hamblin
Subject: RE: Blog Post

At 09:01 PM 04/05/2004, you wrote:

>James, you can do this perfectly well without my help. This statement is
>enormously revealing, and your attitude is precisely the reason I find it
>utterly pointless to attempt to have any reasonable discussion with
>you. Your latest email once again degenerates into debating about
>debating rather than addressing any issue that is significant and
>interesting. Life is short, and, quite frankly, I've wasted more than
>enough of mine on you.

OK, thanks, Dr. Hamblin. I assumed your "challenge" was only meant to try to distract from the upcoming debates anyway, and that you would never put yourself in the position of truly having to interact, but, hey, I said I would respond after the Utah trip, and I did. I surely would not wish to have to defend that position in written format, either!

James>>>

From: William Hamblin [William_Hamblin@byu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 3:04 PM
To: James White
Subject: [skinny] RE: Blog Post

James, you are a remarkable piece of work.

I didn't challenge you to a debate. You challenged me. All I did was send you a brief note teasing you for your inconsistency. The rest is your fault. If you didn't want to be distracted you shouldn't have challenged me.

You said you wanted to debate. I, in fact, have no absolutely desire to debate you. None. Period. But, nonetheless, since you challenged me, I said I would debate you in writing on the internet about the errors in your etract "Temples without hands." I have made that offer nearly a dozen times in the past few weeks. You have never once responded to that offer with a simple yes or no. So, my offer still stands, and I ask you again:

Do you want to defend your etract "Temples without hands" in a written internet debate?

No more obfuscation, please. No more evasion, please. No more attempting to change the time, place, topic or format, please. No more berating me for a failure to defend a position I have never taken, please. No more absurd mind-reading about my malicious motives, please. A simple yes or no will do nicely.

If you do not answer this question clearly and unequivocally in your next email, I can only assume-after asking the question ten times--that the answer is no, and won't bother you further.

From: James White [NA27@aomin.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 3:44 PM
To: William Hamblin
Subject: RE: Blog Post

At 02:04 PM 04/06/2004, you wrote:

>If you do not answer this question clearly and unequivocally in your
>next email, I can only assume-after asking the question ten times--that
>the answer is no, and won't bother you further.

Sir:

I have offered you a clear, usable format for the discussion of the issue of temples and Christianity. I agreed to your posting requirements. You have declined. What else is there to discuss?

James>>>

From: William Hamblin [William_Hamblin@byu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:02 PM
To: skinny
Subject: [skinny] RE: Blog Post

You're right, James, there is nothing to discuss.

But please stop equivocating.

Although you will not explicitly state it, you clearly refuse to defend your etract "Temples without Hands" in a written internet debate.

That's fine with me.

From: James White [NA27@aomin.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:07 PM
To: William Hamblin
Subject: RE: Blog Post

At 03:02 PM 04/06/2004, you wrote:

>Although you will not explicitly state it, you clearly refuse to defend
>your etract "Temples without Hands" in a written internet debate.
>That's fine with me.

If you have to twist the facts in that way to assuage your conscience, I'm sorry, but you and I both know it isn't true. :-)

James>>>

From: William Hamblin [William_Hamblin@byu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:10 PM
To: skinny
Subject: [skinny] RE: Blog Post

Ha! Ha! Ha!

That's very funny James.

Although these exchanges are quite pointless, you do make me laugh sometimes.

I take this to mean that you will debate the merits of your etract "Temples without hands." I'm ready; Let's go!

From: James White [NA27@aomin.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:13 PM
To: William Hamblin
Subject: RE: Blog Post

At 03:10 PM 04/06/2004, you wrote:

>I take this to mean that you will debate the merits of your etract
>"Temples without hands." I'm ready; Let's go!

I take it that you are not rescinding your declination. Please identify the thesis statement you wish to debate in the format already agreed upon.

James>>>

From: William Hamblin [mailto:William_Hamblin@byu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:19 PM
To: skinny
Subject: [skinny] RE: Blog Post

Then we are agreed. We are going to debate the accuracy of your claims in your etract "Temples without hands." We will pick up where we left off, on the question of whether God commanded the Israelites to build temples other than the one in Jerusalem, as found on the Shields web page.

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_05c.htm

Agreed?

From: William Hamblin [William_Hamblin@byu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:31 PM
To: skinny
Subject: [skinny] RE: Blog Post

I think your most recent Blog is premature, if not entirely deceptive. We'll be sure to put the full correspondence up on SHIELDS to clarify matters.

[James White’s Blog]

4/6/04: Dr. Hamblin Declines Internet Debate

Despite Dr. Hamblin's constant reiteration of his desire to debate the topic of temples on the Internet, when I responded to his very first counter-proposal, accepting all his conditions, but not yet arriving at an acceptable thesis statement, he ended the negotiations and said he was not interested. Hence, our challenge to debate publicly before cameras, in written form in published venues, and even in the form he himself promoted, on the Internet--all have been declined by Dr. Hamblin.

From: James White [NA27@aomin.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:39 PM
To: William Hamblin
Subject: RE: Blog Post

At 03:18 PM 04/06/2004, you wrote:

Sir, a debate requires a thesis statement. Please forward a usable thesis statement upon which opening statements can be written as per the format agreed upon. Thank you.

James>>>

From: William Hamblin [William_Hamblin@byu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:48 PM
To: skinny
Subject: [skinny] RE: Blog Post

You're being amusing again, James.

Here are three issues you raise in your etract, which I dispute.

1- "Under the Old Covenant, the one true God of Israel, Jehovah, allowed His people to build a single temple, located in Jerusalem."

I believe God "commanded" temple building, rather than merely "allowing" it.

2- "Never did God allow His people to build multiple temples such as those of the pagan religions that surrounded Israel."

I believe God commanded the building of several contemporary temples, and accepted worship from others as well.

3- "The early Christians did not seek to build a temple in Jerusalem, or anywhere else, for that matter. Christians have never built temples."

I believe that temple ideology remained central to New Testament Christianity. Furthermore, there are numerous examples of non-LDS Christians building temples in history.

From: James White
To: William Hamblin
Tue 4/6/2004 5:13 PM

>3- "The early Christians did not seek to build a temple in Jerusalem, or
>anywhere else, for that matter. Christians have never built temples."
>
>I believe that temple ideology remained central to New Testament
>Christianity. Furthermore, there are numerous examples of non-LDS
>Christians building temples in history.

Then would you debate the thesis, in the format offered, "Temple Ideology as Seen in the Temples of the Latter-day Saints is Central to New Testament Christianity"?

James>>>

Hamblin to White (Tue 4/6/2004 5:53 PM)

You're so transparent, James. Once again, you refuse to defend what you wrote, and try to shift the topic.

I readily admit that LDS temple rituals are not explicit in the NT. LDS should not expect them to be, since they are some of the "things unutterable," to which Paul alludes. Furthermore, for obvious reasons, I will not discuss LDS temple rituals with you. Finally, LDS do not believe in sufficiency of scripture; the NT does not contain the entirety of Christ's first century revelations.

So, do you want to defend your claim that "The early Christians did not seek to build a temple in Jerusalem, or anywhere else, for that matter. Christians have never built temples" or not? The choice is yours.

-----Original Message-----
From: James White [mailto:NA27@aomin.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:34 PM
To: William Hamblin
Subject: RE: Blog Post

At 04:53 PM 04/06/2004, you wrote:

>So, do you want to defend your claim that "The early Christians did not
>seek to build a temple in Jerusalem, or anywhere else, for that matter.
>Christians have never built temples" or not? The choice is yours.

Sir, I am sorry you refuse to step up to the plate and defend the Mormon position on temples. I am sorry you misunderstood and misrepresented my
tract and its intentions years ago as well. I have asked you to present a meaningful and useful thesis for a written, internet-based debate that would be of some level of interest and usefulness to those would take the time to read it (let alone worth the effort needed to produce it). The Apostles did not build temples in Jerusalem, or anywhere else, for that matter, in which they were to engage in priesthood based endowments. They did not seek to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, nor did they seek to build temples as Mormons build temples today. THIS WAS THE POINT OF THE TRACT. These are facts, but it is now self-evident that you have no intention, and I doubt ever *had* any intention, to actually address these facts in any meaningful fashion. I have asked you to suggest a thesis that would address the real issues about temples, but it is clear you have no intention of doing so.

I am sure you will be posting our correspondence, as always, and when you do so, I will link to it. Should you change your mind and actually wish to engage in a meaningful and useful internet-based debate, the following thesis would be the only one I would now care to pursue with you:

Melchizedek Priesthood Authority and Temple Endowments are Essential to
Christianity

If you would care to defend such a thesis in the agreed upon format, please let me know. Otherwise, this correspondence has become a waste of time for both of us.

James>>>

From: Dr. Hamblin
To: James White
Subject: [skinny] RE: Blog Post
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:53:01 -0600

Oh James, but you do make me laugh.

You write: "I am sorry you refuse to step up to the plate and defend the
Mormon position on temples." Really?

Here are the three theses you have suggested for our debate:

1- "The Building of Temples for Worship and Priesthood Activities is an Essential Element of New Testament Christianity"
I have never claimed that New Testament era Christians built temples.
I do not believe that New Testament era Christians built temples. (Note, there is no reason LDS should believe this. Our scriptures explicitly state, "this ordinance [i.e. of the temple] belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a house unto me." (DC 124.30) In other words, the Lord commands his people to build temples only when they have the means and opportunity to do so. New Testament era Christians did not have the means nor opportunity, and were therefore exempt from building new temples. The fact that they did not is perfectly consistent with LDS temple ideology.)
So, why should I be expected to affirm this proposition in a debate?

2- "Temple Ideology as Seen in the Temples of the Latter-day Saints is
Central to New Testament Christianity"
I have never claimed that LDS temple ideology is explicitly found in the New Testament. I do not believe that LDS temple ideology is explicitly found in the New Testament. (We should not expect it to be found there. It is one of the
"things unutterable." I do, however, believe there are quite a number of interesting allusions to temple ideas in the NT.)
So, why should I be expected to affirm this in a debate?

3- "Melchizedek Priesthood Authority and Temple Endowments are Essential
to Christianity"
I have never claimed that Melchizedek Priesthood Authority and Temple Endowments are Essential to Christianity. (Why would I affirm such a preposterous idea? Only an anti-Mormon could come up with this formulation. The vast majority of Christians in the world today and throughout history have had neither Melchizedek priesthood authority nor endowments. This does not make them non-Christian. What is essential to Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah.) I do not believe that Melchizedek Priesthood Authority and Temple Endowments are Essential to Christianity. (Rather, they are essential to exaltation, which is quite a different matter. You see James, I even
think that you, in your own way, are a Christian, and therefore part of Christianity; and you clearly don't believe in Melchizedek priesthood and temples.)
So, why should I be expected to affirm this in a debate?

In other words, you have proposed three topics asking me to defend a position in a debate that I do no believe! Then, on your absurd blog, you triumphantly and quite deceptively proclaim that, because I won't defend propositions I do not believe that I refuse to debate you at all. Why should I possibly want to defend a proposition I do not believe?

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario. Two people decide to debate the holocaust. The first proposes a thesis, "The Holocaust never occurred," and tells the second that he has to debate the affirmative. "But," the second rightly object, "I actually believe the Holocaust occurred." "You coward," triumphantly proclaims the first on his Blog, "you refuse to debate me." Don't you think the second person would have a reasonable objection that he should not be forced to offer arguments in favor of a proposition he doesn't believe?

Contrast this with your situation. You have posted your web page your etract "Temples without hands." In it you affirm, among other things, three propositions with which I disagree.

1- "Under the Old Covenant, the one true God of Israel, Jehovah, allowed His people to build a single temple, located in Jerusalem."
2- "Never did God allow His people to build multiple temples such as
those of the pagan religions that surrounded Israel."
3- "The early Christians did not seek to build a temple in Jerusalem, or anywhere else, for that matter. Christians have never built temples." (I note that in your most recent letter you significantly back-peddle on your original position by claiming that "The Apostles did not build temples in Jerusalem." I agree with this reformulated statement. But this is a significantly different proposition that the claim that "Christians have never built temples." In other words, you have
conceded my original point, no?)

Now here we actually have you affirming propositions and me disagreeing. This are three historical questions which can be clearly answered with available historical evidence. I am willing to debate you about these three propositions. But after a dozen offers, you have consistently refused to ever clearly answer the question of whether you will defend you etract or not. You dodge, obfuscate, posture and change the subject. You try to get me to debate, affirming propositions I don't believe in. But you NEVER explicitly answer my question. So I will ask it again:

Will you have a written internet debate defending your etract "Temples without hands"? Yes or no, please.

All they while you are proclaiming on your blog that I have refused to debate you! This situation is so surreal that I feel like I'm living in a Twilight Zone rendition of a Salvador Dali painting.

I have also proposed three other topics:
-- Continued Christian participation in worship and visions at the Jerusalem Temple
-- The Christian concept of Temple in Heaven and heavenly vision and ascent to worship there
-- The biblical views of the eschatological temple
You don't want to debate these either. That's fine with me. As I have said repeatedly, I have no real desire to debate you.

James, it would be absurd for me to ask you to defend Arminianism, or the veneration of the Virgin Mary, or that scripture is not inerrant, because you don't believe in these things. Your proposed topics are equally absurd, but not nearly as absurd as your blog posturing about my unwillingness to debate you.

(As I was finishing this email I noted your recent blog posting all our correspondence. Thank you. It was a nice piece of damage control, since you knew it would be appearing on SHIELDS soon. I think it will show interested readers, however few they may be, that your claims that your invitations to debate have "been declined by Dr. Hamblin," and that I have "dodge[d] every rational attempt to establish grounds for debate" are manifestly false. Hence Dr. Peterson charged you with dishonesty. I hope you will also add this letter to your web page. If not, it will certainly go up on SHIELDS.)

I am ready to debate you on your etract "temple without hands". I have always been willing to do so. I will not, however, debate you on propositions which I do not believe.

I hope we can now end this charade. It has been somewhat amusing, but it grows tiresome, and it is obviously a pointless waste of time.

Sincerely,
Bill

From: Dr. William Hamblin
To: James White
Subject: [skinny] RE: Blog Post
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:56:06 -0600

James
Thanks for posting my last letter on your web page.