Any news on your debate with James. Steve?

[Guest]

.......

[_Steve]

Note: I edited this post to remove some comments that some found objectionable. —Steve



Actually, YES! I was just planning to post something about this, but the date has not yet been finally confirmed. However, it appears that Dr. White and I will be debating at Twin Lakes Church, in Aptos, CA, on Sunday night, March 30th.

Since the debate has been put back till March, I will have more time to, hopefully, put together a week's worth of radio programs answering point-by-point the comments he made on his webcast about my lectures. I would like to air these prior to March 30th, so as to stir up additional interest in the live debate.

It is possible that the debate could also be followed-up by a week's worth of radio programs wherein James and I interact, as Tim Staples and I did. I believe that Dr. White has expressed an interest in this.

I do not wish for the Calvinist controversy to dominate the program overmuch, since it is not the most important subject. However, it seems to be important in the minds of many, and I don't at all mind putting it on the front burner for a limited time.

[Guest]

Actually, YES! I was just planning to post something about this, but the date has not yet been finally confirmed. However, it appears that Dr. White and I will be debating at Twin Lakes Church, in Aptos, CA, on Sunday night, March 30th.

YES!! The day before my B-Day, is this your way of giving me an early gift?...

Obviously, this is a few months later than we had originally wished, but both James and I are available on that night, and, unless the church backs out (which I don't think is likely), that is when it should happen. Don't buy your airline tickets, though, until I confirm here that the date is set in stone.

If traveling was my thing, you better bet I would be there with bells on. Well, maybe not bells...

I must admit that James strikes me as one of those guys who's world would end if he ever lost an argument...though getting him to admit such would probably never happen. I have tried several times to call his program and interact on certain issues, but never got passed his call screener because "James didn't want to talk about that today".

And I also find it funny that James uses the term "traditions of man" so much when in dialogue. As if the reformed faith does not have any traditions of men within it....

Don't expect anything new from James. If you have debated one Reformed exegete, you have debated them all. When I debated both Gene Cook and Dusman, I got the same old tired arguments both times. And when I would ask questions based on a certain text, I would get a sermon that ended up making the passage say something in direct opposition to what it actually says!..Eternal security is a sore subject for Calvinist. Just quote John 15 and Romans 11 about branches that don't abide, and those whom Paul said God would "break off", then watch them run..

Since the debate has been put back till March, I will have more time to, hopefully, put together a week's worth of radio programs answering point-by-point the comments he made on his webcast about my lectures. I would like to air these prior to March 30th, so as to stir up additional interest in the live debate.

I think this is a great idea. Seeing he did the same with your topical lecture series on Calvinism, it would give the listeners a chance to hear the other "other" side.

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.

It is possible that the debate could also be followed-up by a week's worth of radio programs wherein James and I interact, as Tim Staples and I did. I believe that Dr. White has expressed an interest in this.

That would be a dream come true. I have been telling James and crew all along that a debate with someone who does not have any ties to a denominational system, and someone who holds entirely to "scripture alone"(all of which describe you Bro Steve), would be better than getting some guy from the Southern Baptist convention or Calvary Chapel to give the same arguments that Calvinist have heard for years and have pre packaged answers to.

I do not wish for the Calvinist controversy to dominate the program overmuch, since it is not the most important subject. However, it seems to be important in the minds of many, and I don't at all mind putting it on the front burner for a limited time.

I can see your point, but Calvinism is a growing trend in many circles, and I think that many non-Calvinist have not really sat down and thought about this one. And the non-Cal apologists who have done so, have commitments to denominations that choke the life out of their arguments.

So I think a lot of good will come of the dialogue. I will be praying about it. I would also like to add that I think James is a fine Christian man, and a very smart person. I am sure that he sincerely believes what he teaches and lives a godly life in accordance with it. So if I seem hard on him at times, its all in good clean fun. But I to get frustrated when he attacks us non Calvinist all the time with the same stuff. "Semi-pelagian" "Open theist" "Traditions of men"...

[Guest]

I've listened to James White quite a bit. I enjoy when he debates Catholics, less so with Muslims, but his dogma when it comes to Reformed discussions especially gets in his way (as does his ego) and I usually come away frustrated by his use of intellect over reason.

One thing that drives me mad (and which I hope Steve can adequately address) is his adherence to Greek semantics and syntax. I'm no greek scholar, but it seems that our understanding of a dead language can't be adequately certain (even White's) to derive a seemingly inconsistent dogma based on it in conflict with rational views to the contrary in the absence of such scholarship. What if a writer at the time misused a term?

I certainly don't write with perfect grammar, and someone who interprets what I write 2000 years later might make assumptions based on an understanding at the time of English grammar which would lead to the wrong interpretation if they assume I wrote perfect English grammar (even assuming they correctly understand the English grammar of today).

[Guest]

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

Could you make this available online as well? That would be (almost) a dream come true!

[Guest]

I've listened to James White quite a bit. I enjoy when he debates Catholics, less so with Muslims, but his dogma when it comes to Reformed discussions especially gets in his way (as does his ego) and I usually come away frustrated by his use of intellect over reason.

One thing that drives me mad (and which I hope Steve can adequately address) is his adherence to Greek semantics and syntax. I'm no greek scholar, but it seems that our understanding of a dead language can't be adequately certain (even White's) to derive a seemingly inconsistent dogma based on it in conflict with rational views to the contrary in the absence of such scholarship. What if a writer at the time misused a term?

Thank you Darin,

I find it hard to stomach when James goes on and on over one word in the Greek language, and he often does this as you pointed out. Dusman did this to me in our debate. He tried to get us stuck on the Greek grammer of 1 John 5:1 about those who are "born of God", as if to say that salvation is not conditional on anything, even faith...James is a master of this. Of course he will respond with "Does not the original language matter?" And I would answer yes, but any language can be twisted to say anything!! And if the reason you run to the greek is to make the passage say something else other than what it says, or sometimes make it contradict what the passage plainly says, then it seems that one is stretching...
Clear cases of this is when Calvinist interpret Eph 2:8-9 to say that faith is the gift of God that Paul is talking about, other than salvation. Or when Gene and Dusman tried to "Greek" Romans 9 into saying that Paul is talking about Jacob and Esau singular, rather than the nations they represent.

I certainly don't write with perfect grammar, and someone who interprets what I write 2000 years later might make assumptions based on an understanding at the time of English grammar which would lead to the wrong interpretation if they assume I wrote perfect English grammar (even assuming they correctly understand the English grammar of today.

Ive thought about this one to. I suppose it all boils down to what your view of scripture is. If you believe that every word is correct, then you could logically assume such, but then that opens many other doors such as "Which translation is perfect?"... I hope nobody reads what I write and assume that I have a perfect understanding of grammer and english. My grammer is bad, and my english is worse.

[_Steve]

I have noticed that Dr. White frequently comments on how “exegetical” Calvinism is as a system. The first time I heard him make this claim (several years ago), I was astonished at it, and wondered where he had encountered such responsible exegesis done by Calvinists. I had read one Calvinist apologist after another, only to be frustrated by the near-total absence of anything I could recognize as careful and fair exegesis.

Then I realized that Dr. White holds to a rather narrow definition of the word “exegesis.” When I use the term, I am speaking of rendering an explanation of a text, based upon:

1) the meanings of words (vocabulary),
2) the relationships of the words to each other (grammar), and
3) the relationship of a sentence to other sentences in the flow of thought (context).

By contrast, it would appear that, to Dr. White, the chief feature of exegesis is a detailed analysis of Greek syntax (a feature of #2, above). This is a convenient (though truncated) definition for a Greek scholar to adopt, since he has special training in such matters, whereas few in his audience can understand the high-level explanations, giving the following impressions:

1) that he knows more than they do about the Bible,

2) that his interpretation (something different from translation) must be correct, and

3) that even if his interpretation is not correct, the problems involved in understanding the text are so complex as to render it impossible for the common man to know if he is right or wrong.

So he wins his point by default—unless his opponent knows Greek as well as he does, and can clearly explain why his point is not established by his intricate arguments.

This insistence upon parsing the Greek text as the main feature of “exegesis,” however, gives the impression that we have no adequate English translations of the Bible. If Dr. White is capable of doing correct analysis of the Greek text, and is able to tell us what it means, why should we think that the Greek scholars who gave us our translations were unable to do the same?

Of course, there are instances in the Greek text where there is room for interpretation and for the intrusion of bias into the work of translating, resulting in unfortunate translational choices in some of the popular English versions. When this is so, an appeal to the particulars of the actual Greek wording may be necessary to bring clarity.

However, in studying many commentaries (all of which are written by scholars who read Greek—and most of them Calvinists!), I have gotten the distinct impression that, in the vast majority of cases, the Greek grammar of the original text is adequately represented in the English grammar of a responsible English translation. The cases where in-depth analysis of the Greek brings out a meaning contrary to that which can be drawn from a good English translation would seem to be the unusual exceptions.

The fact that men of equal stature in the realm of Greek scholarship can reach different conclusions about the meaning of a passage proves that analysis of the Greek is not the only (and often, not the primary) factor in biblical exegesis. If intimate knowledge of the Koine Greek is the primary qualification for interpreting scripture, then Calvinism must be rejected, since the church fathers of the first three centuries, who spoke Koine fluently (many of them as their native tongue) were not able to see the Calvinist doctrines which Dr. White insists spring so unmistakably from the Greek text.

However, the ability to catch an author’s train of thought is often the most valuable tool in deciding upon the meaning of a questionable passage. This requires the ability to see “the forest,” rather than missing it by overly close scrutiny of the “trees”—or even of the bark on the trees.

But the ability to follow an author’s train of thought and to see "the big picture" is not the exclusive province of specially-trained Greek scholars. The ability to parse every sentence in the ancient Greek is the privilege of a relatively elite few in the Body of Christ. Those who have taken the pains, spent the time and the money to acquire such credentials have a definite stake in convincing people (and themselves!) that this specialized skill is more essential to Christian understanding than it may actually be.

Every thoughtful Christian who possesses the Holy Spirit may correctly understand the message of scripture—taking the task of interpretation out of the hands of a scholarly elite and bringing it into the domain of the humble and reverent believer, who trembles at God’s word!

“I thank you, Father...that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them unto babes!”

[Guest]

Amen.

[Guest]

Yes, VERY well said. It may be that this is the premise that needs to be debated first. Perhaps, James could call in your show one day in weeks prior to the debates to discuss this very premise so you can be fair to each others' approach and time can best be used in the debate without just talking past these very different approaches?

[Guest]

Steve has very well indicated the over-emphasis on Greek grammar which Dr. White apparently expresses in what appears to be a limited exegetic. The only parts of Steve's expression of his thoughts which do not seem correct are the affirmations made in the following paragraph:

However, in studying many commentaries (all of which are written by scholars who read Greek—and most of them Calvinists!), I have gotten the distinct impression that, in the vast majority of cases, the Greek grammar of the original text is adequately represented in the English grammar of a responsible English translation. The cases where in-depth analysis of the Greek brings out a meaning contrary to that which can be drawn from a good English translation would seem to be the unusual exceptions.

I have found many examples in which the Greek text gives meanings which differ from or are contrary to the well-known and accepted translations.

I'll mention just a few at this time, a few which immediately come to mind
:

ekklāsia is translated consistently as "church" whenever it refers to a Christian assembly or to the body of Christ in general. But the word is a secular Greek word, and just happened to have been applied to Christian assemblies.

If the word were always translated as "church" we would have an interesting statement from the town clerk concerning the riot at Ephesus:

For we are in danger of being charged with rioting today, there being no cause that we can give to justify this commotion." And when he had said this, he dismissed the church. Acts 19:40,41

The "church" which he dismissed was the people of Ephesus who had been shouting on behalf of their goddess Artemis.

I understand that the translation "church" was used wherever possible at the request of the religious establishment of the day.

aiōn is translated many times as "world" in the King James Version (considered to be a "responsible English translatilon". The word actually means "age". I understand that the Lartin Vulgate used two different Latin words to translate "aiōn". Whenever one was used, the AV translators rendered it "world",and whenever the other was used, they rendered it some form of "erternity." That procedure does not appear to be responsible translation.

One particularly ludicrous example is:

1 Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. AV

The Greek phrase eis ton aiōna not only does not contain the word "world" burt says nothing about anything "standing".
Yet this ridiculous phrase was carried over into the KJ21 as well as the RWebser --- no doubt considered "responsible English Translations.

Then we have this one:

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God AV

This seems to suggest that Jesus thought it all right to be equal with God.
This is the way it is translated also in the Douay, JB2000, KJ21, NKJV, and the RWebster.

But the passage actually says the exact opposite:

... who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. Philippians 2:6,7 RSV

All of the translations render John 1:1 similar to the following:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. RSV

This translation is confusing to the average reader, who assumes that "God" refers to the heavenly Father. Such a reader asks, "How can Jesus both be with God and also be God?"

Martin Luther, who had a good grasp of Greek, knew that if that were the meaning, the apostle would have placed a definite article before the second "theos". He very succinctly stated:

The lack of an article is algainst Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

A translation that would bring out the true meaning might be:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Deity. RSV