The Narrow Path Ministries

I have learned that James never had a single compelling answer to anything Steve threw at him. Maybe I am a bit biased, but believe me, I tried to be as open minded as possible, and still came away with the same conclusions.

James simply asserted that John 6 and Eph 1 teach his position, and tossed out the usual "Synergism is man centered" talk that Calvinist usually get hung up on.

I like how James tried tried to isolate John 6:44 from the entire NT, even the very next verse, which he says (rather rudely) "As if verse 45 comes before verse 44!". When Steve pointed out that James uses the very same hermeneutic when dealing with other doctrines such as the Trinity, we never heard James' answer.

The other point that kinda had me scratching head was when James was trying to pull out his Greek knowledge of Eph 1, as if it that could prove that people are chosen individually in Christ, rather than corporately when they become part of the body. At least I thought that was where he was trying to go. Steve simply read the passage, which says we are chosen "In Christ", Steve did not try and go into lengthy Greek lessons and speak Greek to the detriment of the listeners who more than likely have no clue as to what James was saying, and probably thought he was utilizing the gift of tongues.

Anyone else listen to the debate this week?

brody_in_ga wrote:...Anyone else listen to the debate this week?

... listened again only to a portion of it Brody. There was just something about the debate that left a yucky feeling in me. I thought the spirit of it was completely different than from the Staples/Gregg debate (which I've listened to countless times). I'm not sure what it was ... just yucky. And I'm not real fond of yucky.

peace,

dane

featheredprop wrote:

brody_in_ga wrote:...Anyone else listen to the debate this week?

... listened again only to a portion of it Brody. There was just something about the debate that left a yucky feeling in me. I thought the spirit of it was completely different than from the Staples/Gregg debate (which I've listened to countless times). I'm not sure what it was ... just yucky. And I'm not real fond of yucky.

peace,

dane

There was a little tension every now and then, but that is to be expected when debating a subject so dear to many people.

There was a little tension every now and then, but that is to be expected when debating a subject so dear to many people.

I don't think it was the subject!

darin-houston wrote:

There was a little tension every now and then, but that is to be expected when debating a subject so dear to many people.

I don't think it was the subject!

What do you think it was then?

brody_in_ga wrote:

darin-houston wrote:

There was a little tension every now and then, but that is to be expected when debating a subject so dear to many people.

I don't think it was the subject!

What do you think it was then?

I think it was a combination of things -- most of it was, i think, format -- with the personality involved, it needed to be more structured -- White seems to look more for victory than truth, I'm afraid, and the only way to keep it edifying in such a situation is to keep close rules -- if he had been more interested in understanding Steve and looking to identify holes (if any) in his own positions, I think even a casual conversation over the week would have been outstanding and useful.

darin-houston wrote:

brody_in_ga wrote:

darin-houston wrote: I don't think it was the subject!

What do you think it was then?

I think it was a combination of things -- most of it was, i think, format -- with the personality involved, it needed to be more structured -- White seems to look more for victory than truth, I'm afraid, and the only way to keep it edifying in such a situation is to keep close rules -- if he had been more interested in understanding Steve and looking to identify holes (if any) in his own positions, I think even a casual conversation over the week would have been outstanding and useful.

But that's exactly why Steve won the debate! James' one liners and such where diffused, and Steve clearly demonstrated a more consistent argument.

James' attempt to isolate John 6 from the rest of scripture, even words written by the same author, in the same book(!)was priceless! But Steve knew how to handle it, and did a good job.

I listened again to most of the debates, and my assessment would be that either Dr. White or I may be perceived as having won, depending on what one views as the object of the debate.

If one rates speakers on the degree to which they tell people what they must believe, I think that Dr. White would be perceived as the winner.

If, on the other hand, the objective of the debate is viewed as making people think for themselves about the issues, in an effort to encourage them to reach their own conclusions, I suspect that I will be perceived as having obtained this objective better than did my opponent.

With this in view, I am quite sure that both Dr. White and I would believe that we won, because only he obtained the objective he aimed at, and only I obtained that which I aimed at.

Those who like to be told what to believe, and who enjoy telling others what they must believe, will obviously prefer Dr. White's style better than mine—and they might even conclude that (by that measure) I did not even show up for the debate at all.

One reviewer, after claiming to have listened to the debate about 3 times, said that "James White had a cogent clear presentation, which held together; Steve Gregg’s presentation was only derivative. I came away closer to Reformed."

To be honest, I can see how one might feel this way. But, the reason White appears to have such a clear presentation, espesially compared to Gregg, can be explained. For one, White seems to have “rehearsed” what he will say for every thinkable verse that he knows will come up (whether he plans to bring it up, or suspects it likely to come up). I got this impression several times, but will provide three examples that points to this being true.

First, listen closely how he responding to Steve’s exegesis/explanation of Romans 9. It’s evident that he either didn’t listen carefully to what Steve was saying, or simply didn’t understand Steve. When the floor gets back around to Steve, he brings this to Whites attention.

Second, listen to how Steve responded to James “exegesis” on Matt. 23:37. [Go here for An Exegetical Vindication of Matthew 23:37] It was obvious that James was dumbfounded and didn’t know what to say, so that’s exactly what he did–HE SAID NOTHING, and moved to another scripture to discuss [this was day 5].

As for my third and final point, it is this: Steve and James began to dialogue on the final day over the the issue of God’s universal saving will.

Starting out, Steve said:

• “Alright. My turn to ask a question. When you bring up that Jesus didn’t die for everybody, it raises an interesting question. And that would be about God’s will and his love for all people. I just have a question, a very simple one. According to your self-described Calvinistic belief system, do you believe there is any sense in which God wills the eternal salvation of the non-elect that hear the gospel call? In other words, does God simply not have any interest in their salvation? Or is there any sense in which he wills that all men would be saved, even the non-elect?”

James responds:

• “Well, that was a very confusing question because you said does God will that the lost hear the gospel call, and then you said does he will their salvation. Those are two different things.”

So, Steve clarifies:

• “No, I’m sorry. Let me clarify that and you can start over again. We will start your time again. Here’s what I said. I’m reading it: “According to your self-described Calvinistic belief system, do you believe there is any sense in which God wills the eternal salvation of the non-elect that hear the gospel call?” I didn’t ask does he want them to hear the gospel call. I’m talking about the non-elect who hear it. Does he, in any sense, will for them to be saved?”1

This is my third point, all to show that it does indeed appear that James either wasn’t listening carefully to what Steve was saying, or simply wasn’t quite understanding Steve on several occasions. Yet all the while White seemed to have such a cogent clear presentation. This points to the possibility if not likelyhood that James had everything rehearsed, even including his rebuttals to Steve’s explanations of several texts. Yet his rebuttals, at times, fail to comprehend what Steve had to say. In my opinion, this gives me the impression that he was more interested in “winning” the debate and making his opponent look defeated, than he was coming together with another brother in the faith and discussion a subject that is so precious to a great many of the saints. I noticed that he often seemed scattered and surprised on a few occasions, yet instead of trying to touch more directly on what Steve was saying on several different texts, he simply would repeat what he had already said, and appeal both to the grammar of the greek and to the context. After being redundant more than a couple times, Steve actually interupted James and told him that if the listeners wanted to hear what he has to say about the matter (I forget what it was), they could play the tape back and listen again. It was Steve that did seem to give more direct responses to what James was saying.

But, after it all, I can see how some would perceive a victorious White in the debate. I mean, the guy debates regularly, and is a skilled debater at that. Steve on the other hand, handles these things as if his opponent is actually a brother, and they are over together drinking coffee or tea while debating. From my perspective, this is precisely one reason [of a few] why I give him the edge in the debate.

1If you would like to listen for yourself, simply go to day 5 [04/09/08] starting at 28:39 - 32:37 in White’s mp3 edition.

At the risk of being quoted again by White's minions as being obsessed over this topic for months (never mind there has been no discussion since the weeks following the debate until this past re-broadcast), I must say that it is clear that White is a sport debater with two objectives in his debates -- (1) winning on points and (2) convincing the other guy he is wrong. I don't get the impression he even comes close to thinking he can learn something from his "opponent."