Any news on your debate with James. Steve?

[Guest]

Thanks Rick,

I should correct one thing about Norm Geisler and me. I was originally asked by a poster here to respond point-by-point to Norm's critique of Hank's preterism. I was sent a copy of Geisler's critique, and I answered it, posting it here. Norm did not fire the first shot at me in that case. I guess I didn't know enough about netiquette to send him a link or inform him of my comments (I didn't even know about his website at the time, since I spend about zero time surfing the web), but I did not mind the thought that he might read my comments. Frankly, I thought I was too "small potatoes" to even be acknowledged by a guy of his prominence (I thought the same about James White. I was very flattered that he gave so much attention to my lectures).

Some time later, the same poster here asked me to respond to Norm's response to me. Norm had posted his response without informing me, but I did not mind. I had not informed him of my original response to him, so it never occurred to me that he ought to have contacted me. When I posted my second response to Geisler, I also did not inform him of it, though I assumed he would see it through whatever means he had discovered my other one. I am really pretty naive about such things as blogs (I never visit any) and message boards (this is the only one I visit). I guess I will live and learn after I make enough faux pas.

Blessings!

Steve


P.S. The whole Geisler dialogue can be found here: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1468

[_Rick_C]

Thanks, Steve, for the link and explanation about the "Geisler posts". I recall reading all of them some time ago. You did a great job, imo!

I don't want to trail off-topic but just to say that: James White's blog, unlike most, does not have the "post a comment" (I just went to see about this). So the only way to contact him, or to comment directly to him on what he says, would be by email or to call him on his radio show. Also, his blog has a new setup and/or is new since I last visited his site. It may be that he will, later, have the "post a comment", I don't know. (This is the standard way almost all theological most blogs "operate", so to speak).

But also, some bloggers choose to have no comments, for whatever reason (they can take up a lot of time, especially when a lot of people post on them, moderators and so forth, are needed. This might be why James White doesn't have comments).

I've been getting into blogs lately, reading them, finding new ones and so on, and setting one up of my own (which doesn't have much on it at all yet). I could say more about them but that would be off-topic for this thread for sure.
__________

(Edited in later): I just emailed the A&O blog and provided them a link to this page, saying, I felt they had a need to know what I posted (which simply seemed like a right thing to do).
__________

OK, Rick out

[Guest]

Steve, couldn't the debate be held in a different venue? One in which strong disagreement would not engender apprehension of disunity among the brethren?

[Guest]

I would think so, Paidion, but I don't have such a venue being offered. Perhaps that will change.

[Guest]

Thanks Rick,

I should correct one thing about Norm Geisler and me. I was originally asked by a poster here to respond point-by-point to Norm's critique of Hank's preterism. I was sent a copy of Geisler's critique, and I answered it, posting it here. Norm did not fire the first shot at me in that case. I guess I didn't know enough about netiquette to send him a link or inform him of my comments (I didn't even know about his website at the time, since I spend about zero time surfing the web), but I did not mind the thought that he might read my comments. Frankly, I thought I was too "small potatoes" to even be acknowledged by a guy of his prominence (I thought the same about James White. I was very flattered that he gave so much attention to my lectures).

Some time later, the same poster here asked me to respond to Norm's response to me. Norm had posted his response without informing me, but I did not mind. I had not informed him of my original response to him, so it never occurred to me that he ought to have contacted me. When I posted my second response to Geisler, I also did not inform him of it, though I assumed he would see it through whatever means he had discovered my other one. I am really pretty naive about such things as blogs (I never visit any) and message boards (this is the only one I visit). I guess I will live and learn after I make enough faux pas.

Blessings!

Steve


P.S. The whole Geisler dialogue can be found here: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1468

Well then, Steve, after reading your post I was prompted to tell you that your biblical view can be found all over the www. People quote you, comment about your understanding, reference you as being one of the greater Bible teachers of today, on and on and on. This is why I especially appreciate you and thank God for His gifting you because you are humble.

[Guest]

If anyone is interested, Dr. White has discussed the canceling of the debate on youtube.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_aDtMIxc2t8

It really is a shame that it has been canceled, and hopefully we will not have to wait too long to have it re-scheduled.

Robin

[Guest]

As I understand it, it hasn't really been cancelled, but the format changed from live with studio audience to radio only. Is that not correct? If not, then surely we can come up with an alternative forum.

[Guest]

It is correct that the debate will go on over the radio. It may be just as well, as there can be more back-and-forth interaction than usually is permitted in a formal debate, and also, we will have more time, since there will be five one-hour broadcasts (I suppose there is no limit to the number of broadcasts that could be devoted to it, if Dr. White and myself were wishing to extend it).

[Guest]

I'm really looking forward to this series. As a recent Christian who has not yet devoted substantial time to carefully working through the complex Calvinism controversy but who finds it very interesting, I believe I will be in a position to reap an especially great benefit from this exchange between two obviously very well studied and articulate advocates.

God bless,

CThomas

[Guest]

I just watched his youtube video. Canceling the debate (at least at that church) makes sense.

But wow! I don't think I could ever say that my exegesis was "perfectly balanced." (For those who haven't watched it, he says that his exegesis of Acts 13:48 is "perfectly balanced").