My impressions of the debate in progress

[_Steve]

I thought I would mention my impressions of the debate after the second day.

On Day 1, I felt that James' position came across stronger than mine, for a number of reasons:

1. He used much more scripture than I used. However, the scriptures he used were never exegeted or seen in their contexts, so that the strength of his case was only apparent. I felt compelled to take a negative approach—namely, pointing out the irrelevance of his proof texts. However, this prevented me from giving a positive case.

2. He was prepared with a presentation, while I was expecting the program to be more conversational, and had not prepared any presentation. Thus my presentation was not concise or focused as was his.

3. I do not plan to appeal to the tastes of those who are impressed with Dr. White's style of argumentation. I am interested in getting across truths to people who like to analyze arguments and search for the true meaning of a biblical passage. Therefore, I will never simply rattle-off twelve verses without comment and pretend that this has somehow made my case. I have never debated a Calvinist who failed to take this very approach. Dr White is no exception. The gatling-gun approach does impress those who do not wish to give the matter much deep thought, who are content to go with verbal first impressions, and who are intimidated by scholarly credentials.

I do not play in that league—not because it was not open to me, but because I object to it in principle. To argue in this manner insults the intelligence of your opponent and your audience. It is as if you are saying, "I guess you didn't know all of these verses were there against your position, did you?" It does not acknowledge the likelihood that your opponent may be very aware of and comfortable with all of those texts, and that they should be examined more closely to see whether they support one view over the other.

4. On a personal note, I literally had not slept well Wednesday night (not because of anything related to the debate). I was very tired, and had "half my brain tied behind my back" (as I had previously joked about, but had not really intended to do!). I was not "at the top of my game" and my computer software connecting me to the studio crashed three times during the show, which means that much of the time, while speaking to Dr. White off the top of my head, I was trying to reboot a slow program (which requires entering two passwords at different stages).

Okay, enough excuses. Just thought I would explain things for those who may have been disappointed.

In my own view, the second day was entirely different from the first. I still did not have occasion to present my positive case, but I was more rested and focused. I believe Dr. White was caught by surprise by certain points, and it was obvious.

My strength is not in giving 12-minute summaries of the entirety of the Bible's teaching (brevity is not my gift). James is good at such succinct presentations. It is his strength, I believe.

Where I find him weakest, both in verbal and written debate, is when he is forced to respond to an unexpected challenge on some point for which he has no prepared answers. My impression is that he is scattered and sounds desperate in those circumstances. It is in just that kind of situation, however, that I feel most comfortable.

Such interaction will, I hope, characterize much of the remainder of the debate, though I must, at some point present my positive case. If I am not able to take the time to do that during the debate (because I am forced to interact more with specific challenges), I will give my positive case on a sixth broadcast following the fifth debate. If Dr. White wishes to respond to my positive case, he can phone in afterward and give his response.

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

I did not hear the first session and so I won't respond to it. However I did listen Saturday AM to Fridays show and I felt, for one thing, that you allowed him to take control of the format. I suggest, if it hasn't been already, that you say how you want it and stick to it. I know you are a gentle person and a true servant of the faith, but in this kind of venue I think many listeners would like for you to be in charge on your show.

I do believe you did very well even though you were not able to make your presentation. Its hard to not respond to what you disagree with while its still fresh in the listeners ears.

[Guest]

... though I must, at some point present my positive case. If I am not able to take the time to do that during the debate (because I am forced to interact more with specific challenges), I will give my positive case on a sixth broadcast following the fifth debate. If Dr. White wishes to respond to my positive case, he can phone in afterward and give his response.

Why don't you start out the next show by stating your positive case before Dr. White has a chance to offer the challenges you would be forced to interact with? IOW, put him on the defensive.

[Guest]

I thought both days went well. It was nice to start at a point that both sides agree is the dividing line. Choice and God's sovereignty.

Steve, I would suggest that you give your positive presentation on Monday. I don't understand why you would wait any longer. You could respond to James indefinitely but listeners should at least hear you give your presentation so they can do the very thing you would like them to do, evaluate both sides objectively to find the truth. This may be difficult if you don't state your positive case and allow it to be cross examined by James on the show.

I just noticed Jared's post.

Consider starting out Monday with your positive case and go from there. It seems like a good time to do it after the natural break in the show over the weekend.

[Guest]

Steve,

You are doing great Brother, James is just "carpet bombing" bible verses like most Calvinist do.

If I can suggest one thing, try and interact with James in a more personal format, not just letting him speak for 8 minutes, and then you for 8 minutes.

Just my thoughts.

[Guest]

I went on the AOMIN irc chat last night and enjoyed talking about John 6:37 for a while with a couple calvinists.

I was trying to just speak with one or two people at a time, and was mostly ignoring some "DrOakley". I didn't realize that this was Dr. White, until today when I read somewhere that it is he who uses the user name DrOakely.

As an FYI for Steve, I thought the following would be worth mentioning so both of you can be fully prepared for the discussion of Act 13:48 on Monday. I look forward to hearing the broadcast, and would you like to thank both you and Dr. White for taking the time to carry out the debate.

<DrOakley> pvw, do you agree with SG on Acts 13:48 as well?
<snip>
<pvw> droakley - I'm just trying to stick with one topic for one session - my time is short now, and I can't get into acts 13:48
<snip>
<DrOakley> I was just asking if you agree with him or not.
<snip>
<pvw> dro - i agree
* DrOakley sighs.
<DrOakley> So...all modern Christian translations, except for the Jehovah's Witnesses "translation," are flawed at this one point?
<DrOakley> Acts 13:48 will come up on Monday, I assure you.

Best Regards,
Peter

[_Steve]

Thanks Peter,

I don't need any forewarning about Dr. O's bringing up Acts 13:48. It is a favorite verse of his, and I have heard and read his extensive attempts to debunk the non-Calvinist interpretation of it. I am prepared to discuss any passage he may choose to bring up.

[Guest]

Steve, I think your most powerful argument thus far was offered on day one. You likened the Calvinist's view of sovereignty to a person bragging on how controlling their father is, versus extolling him for his love. After making this point you posed the question, "Which compliment gives more glory to the father?" While many would perceive this as merely a philisophical play on emotion, I'd argue that it cuts right to the heart of the debate.

One can tap dance around the issue by parsing Greek and comparing the arrangement of pronouns (day two) but what it really boils down to is what you said on day one: Is God more glorified by preaching his love or preaching his control? Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists would say "we must preach both" but we must ask which attribute is predominantly stressed? With the Calvinist, the balance seems way off. They must qualify verses like "God is love" to mean "God is love to the elect."

[Guest]

As with many debate type formats, it sounded at times that both of you were talking past each other. I think more direct questioning would help cut to the chase so to speak regarding the main issues at hand.

There's also a distinct personality difference between Steve and James, which is a factor. Go ahead and pin him down Steve on the critical issues and don't let up until they've been adequately addressed...


Thanks

Phil

[Guest]

As with many debate type formats, it sounded at times that both of you were talking past each other. I think more direct questioning would help cut to the chase so to speak regarding the main issues at hand.

There's also a distinct personality difference between Steve and James, which is a factor. Go ahead and pin him down Steve on the critical issues and don't let up until they've been adequately addressed...


Thanks

Phil

Exactly. One can still be mister nice guy but yet demand a real answer.