Any news on your debate with James. Steve?

[Guest]

Steve wrote: Also, since the debate will only allow time to make a small number of points (we could debate every night for a month without exhausting the relevant points of controversy), I am hoping to make available, at the debate, a printed document where I list every scriptural passage used by Calvinists in every one of their debates (so far, I have collected over 150), and to afix a brief (or lengthy) comment from the non-Calvinist perspective about each passage, so that the verses he brings up to which there will not be enough time to respond might not go un-addressed.

This is a great idea Steve. I was wondering, if you know whether it will address all the passages in the book "The Five Points of Calvinism By David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, S. Lance Quin? This book is cheap and is basically a book of prooftexts with no exegesis on the texts. Instead, it has brief summarys for each doctrine of the TULIP.

[_Steve]

I am not familiar with that book, but I doubt if it has any verses in it that I have not been able to gather from the many other Calvinist books I have. They all seem to use pretty much the same proof-texts anyway.

[Guest]

Glad to see a tentative date! Looking forward to the debate and listening to your radio responses to his webcasts.

[Guest]

Steve,

As it is a passage that he has focused on in other dialogues, I'm sure that Dr. White will attempt to use John 6 as strong argument for Calvinism. If I could (and I've done this before), I would like to point you to the conversation that Dr. White and Tim Warner had on John 6. Tim's explanation is very thought-provoking and his points are not easily dismissed.

Warner:

http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin10a.html
http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin10b.html
http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin10b.html

White:

http://www.aomin.org/PFRSJohn6.html
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1456
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1456
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1460
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1471
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2006-08 (part V is almost 1/2 way down the page)

Enjoy!
Brian

[_Steve]

Brian,

Thanks for those links again. I was largely unfamiliar with White before he decided to critique my lectures on his show (which is why, when a caller on my show called him 'John White,' I didn't pick-up on the mistake, and I also referred to him by the same name the caller had used). I agreed to debate him, not because of who he is, but because I am willing to debate anyone about any scriptural topic, if they wish to do so.

[_Steve]

In fairness to Dr. White, I should say that he has responded to my assessment of his view of exegesis (found in my post, above, of Nov.26th). He has apparently blogged (just today) on my comments. I have not seen the blog, and am not sure when I may get to it, but many of you know where to find it. What I would like to do is let him take issue with me right here in the forum where he thinks I misrepresented him. I am posting, below, the paragraph in which he takes me to task in his email to me.

Dr. White wrote:

I have no possible way of understanding how you derived your comments about what I think exegesis is (especially since I have written on the topic for years, in widely-distributed books), but let me assure you, what you wrote about my views on the subject on November 26th, 2007 honestly bears not the slightest resemblance to my views at all. Such concerns me just a bit, I must admit. I would recommend you look at least at my chapter on exegesis in _Scripture Alone_ for an accurate rendition of my views on the subject; you might likewise find my two-part article on the exegesis of Hebrews 8 in The Reformed Baptist Theological Review (www.rbtr.org) an excellent example of what I present as "exegesis." Likewise, numerous chapters in _The God Who Justifies_, especially the 24 page chapter on James 2:14-26, give plain evidence of the full and robust definition of exegesis I present, and my consistency in practicing what I preach.

I should say that his email is much longer than this paragraph, and he is entirely cordial and friendly in the entire email. I am glad of this, because I prefer to debate people whom I actually like. In the email that contained this paragraph, I found him much more likable than I had formerly given him credit for being. I apologize that I may have represented him otherwise in earlier posts.

[Guest]

I've followed Mr. White's blog and podcast pretty closely since he began his review of Steve's series. One thing I've been struck by -- he has a much better sense of humor and good nature than many give him credit for.

I do think, however, that Steve's comments about his appeal to academics and fine distinctions of greek understanding are fair criticisms. It is just his inclination to view a verse not only with less consideration to surrounding context (other than immediate context) and other verses on the same subject or those being quoted and much more consideration to formal understandings of syntax and interpretation.

Even if he is unquestionably an expert in this area, I don't have the faith in our understanding of these things as he seems to (maybe that's just because I'm not an academic).

As long as Mr. White responds to Steve's points and doesn't just go back to the comfort of his textual analysis, this should prove to be very edifying.

[_Steve]

Bad news, folks! The debate has been canceled. This was Dr. White's decision, but it was my fault. Let me explain...

The church where the debate was to take place is a large seeker-sensitive-type of church, where controversy is avoided. The approval to do the debate was secured by the missions pastor over the concerns of the senior pastor. It was very important to the latter that, if there was to be a debate, it must be done in as non-controversial a spirit as possible. In my opinion, this would have been entirely possible.

However, when I posted, on this thread, some unflattering remarks about Dr. White's exegetical methods (which I have since edited out), and James White posted and responded to my comments, there was a parishioner of Twin Lakes Church who was concerned that there might be a bad spirit between Dr. White and myself (again, my remarks were the ones at fault in this). This parishioner emailed Dr. White's blog (which quoted my remarks) to the missions pastor, who is favorable to the debate and who first pushed it through.

This pastor expressed his concerns that, if the senior pastor were to see such remarks, he would most likely "pull the plug" on the debate. I quickly edited my comments to remove the offensive remarks, and shot off a sincere apology to this pastor and to Dr. White. The missions pastor received my apology, and I think Dr. White did as well.

Then the missions pastor emailed James, requesting that he remove that blog until after the debate date, so that no one would send it to the senior pastor. James opted not to do this. Instead, he said that he would rather not conduct a debate at a church where the congregation's emotions would have to be coddled (my paraphrase) and where he would have to hide his true convictions, so he canceled the debate. He said that we could conduct the debate on a simulcast of "The Narrow Path" and "The Dividing Line" (his broadcast), which is what we now intend to do.

The missions pastor and I are both very disappointed that this has happened, though I confess that my remarks were inappropriate and were the cause of Dr. White's ultimately canceling the debate.

I apologize if my unkind remarks offended anyone else.

[_Rick_C]

Steve,

I feel you are to be commended for acknowledging that some of your comments you had made on this thread, which were "unflattering" about James White, were offensive to either him and/or others.

You edited out these comments, which is the internet equivalent of taking them back, especially when coupled with an apology, which you emailed to James White, as well as posting an apology here.

God bless you, Steve, for doing the right and Christian thing.

I'm wondering if James has accepted your apology. The reason being is, your comments are (currently) posted on James' blog. I'm not "personally" involved in this directly. But as a Christian; when we forgive one another we don't leave past offenses around to "fester" (back up). As it stands now on James White's blog...it gives the "appearance" that you have NOT taken back and apologized for your statements.

How this debate came about in the first place, I mean in terms of it originally being conceived of and so on, wasn't the best of situations. James White was being quite critical of you on his radio show (and in some articles)...and you had no idea he was doing it, nor who he even was!

The same kind of situation occurred with Norman Geisler. He had critiqued you without your knowing it; an FBFF poster brought it to your attention and you replied to "what Norman Geisler wrote" on this forum. I don't recall offhand if Mr. Geisler was informed of your posts or asked to reply.

Steve, as a Bible (and really, a theology) teacher, and with your lectures being free to the public; you are open to criticism from anyone and even invite "challenges" from any person who wants to think and learn.

But ever since the debate between you and James White was first thought about, there has been something about it that rubs me in a wrong way. Namely, it seemed like there was "talking behind someone's back". I got this feeling when I listened to, and read, James White last summer when he was critiquing you. I'm not necessarily saying he was doing this, but it did give me that feeling. His still having your comments posted on his blog give me a similar feeling, a feeling I don't like.

From every discussion/debate I've been in surrounding the topic of Calvinism (over about the past 30 years!), I would say, maybe, only around 5% of them had any real worth or value: The other 95% have been a cause of division in the Body of Christ.

Maybe I've gotten too personal here. Perhaps it's none of my business. Maybe I should get more involved and contact James White and ask if he has forgiven you, Steve. If he has, your comments need to be TAKEN OFF his blog! If he's said he has forgiven you but wants to leave your comments on his blog to "fester", my advice to you, Steve, is to avoid James White.

This is a public forum, my comments are open to anyone, and could be posted anywhere on the web (though it is considered proper netiquette (even among non-Christians!) to ask for permission first, or to at least inform that one is doing it when permission is denied---and to provide links). I may not be able to follow-up if anything in this post gets posted some place else...especially if I don't know by whom--and where--I'm "being talked about (behind my back)".

Rick

[_Rick_C]

P.S. I have just a couple more things to add.

First, as far as James White being an expert in Greek and so on. It doesn't take very long in listening to him that he is interpreting the Greek through a "Calvinistic lens". It is clear that his Calvinistic presuppositions impose a Calvinistic meaning onto the text. If a Greek word can have alternate meanings, the "Calvinistic grid" gives (or "is") the meaning for James White. At least he is very consistent in this (as are other Calvinists in every thing they believe).

Other than this, I agree with Steve's methodology; seeing the text in its original context. For example, what was Paul's train of thought? (good biblical hermeneutics)---as opposed to---what was Calvin's train of thought about Paul? (Calvinism).

It is one thing to "say" one believes in original authorial intention and meaning...and quite something else to DO it theologically. Calvinism fails, along these lines, imo. However, I don't want to debate about this on this thread or forum. I did that last here summer.

Secondly, before a probable (?) debate between Steve and James occurs, I have an intuitive feeling it may be of the 95% variety I mentioned in my above post. I can tell within a couple of minutes (or after reading a post or two on the web) if a discussion/debate will be of the "5% meaningful kind".

I'll listen in if the debate happens. But as a general rule, and in my opinion, Calvinism causes division in the Body of Christ. This is why I have generally dropped the topic of Calvinism from my life (intentionally avoiding debating about it). I'll come back to this thread to see what might be posted. But on principle, by way of past observation, this topic hasn't been of benefit to anyone, 95% of the time.

It might be seen as beneficial if one "gets a convert" to one view or the other (for those who debate to try to win converts).

But to the "convinced", it is a source of division, 95% of the time. This is my observation, anyway, over the last 30 years or so.

Enuf from me,
Rick